VICE President Sara Z. Duterte may choose whether or not to personally appear during impeachment hearings at the House of Representatives, as her presence is considered part of her due process rights, according to House Committee on Justice Chair Atty. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro of Batangas.
Luistro said the vice president will be invited once the proceedings reach the stage of formal hearings, but attendance ultimately remains up to the respondent.
Let us understand that her presence during the hearing proper is part of her due process. In other words, the prerogative is hers. Whether she wants to come or not to come, that is actually her option,” Luistro said in a radio interview Thursday.
She explained that the hearings would allow the complainants to present witnesses and evidence before the committee as part of the impeachment process.
Luistro also underscored that the committee vote would be decisive in determining whether the impeachment complaints would move forward based on probable cause.
“Dito sa step five iba, majority of all members, regardless of the present and the absent members,” she said.
The panel is composed of 55 members, including ex-officio members, meaning at least 28 votes are needed to secure the required majority.
Last Wednesday, the panel voted 54–1, with zero abstentions, in separate votes to determine that the third and fourth impeachment complaints against Duterte were sufficient in substance.
Earlier stages of the proceedings require only a simple majority of members present, provided there is a quorum, but the threshold increases once the committee determines whether sufficient grounds exist to support the impeachment complaint.
Luistro said the higher voting requirement reflects the significance of the committee’s decision before the case is elevated to the plenary for further action.
Meanwhile, Luistro said the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) submitted by Duterte have been cited by members of the House Committee on Justice in assessing allegations raised in the impeachment complaints against her, with questions raised on whether the declared figures are consistent with her reported income.
Luistro said some lawmakers had pointed to apparent inconsistencies between the financial disclosures and the income attributed to the vice president during the period covered by the complaints.
“I cannot speak for myself, but according to the majority of the Justice members, yes, bank records are relevant because the statement of facts or the recital of facts provided the income of the respondent and the improbability of having raised the amount maintained in the bank out of the income that is being generated,” Luistro said.
She noted that the issue surfaced during deliberations when a member of the panel presented the vice president’s SALNs as part of his manifestation.
“And you will remember, Congressman Terry Ridon, in giving his manifestation, shared the two SALNs, and apparently, these SALN are not proportionate, should I say, or consistent with the amount that was being generated by the respondent during the relevant time,” she said.
Luistro explained that the comparison between declared assets and income is among the points raised by some members in examining the allegations contained in the impeachment complaints.
“That’s why, according to the majority, and it has been ruled upon, pinag-botohan ‘yan at ito ‘yung argument at least of a huge number of members of the Justice Committee, relevant documents and bank records,” she added.
