MORE evidence has now been attached to the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte than what was available last year, adding weight to the case now under review by the House Committee on Justice as lawmakers move toward determining whether there is probable cause to proceed.
San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora, a vice chairperson of the House Committee on Justice, said over the weekend the complaint now carries more supporting materials than before, even as the alleged impeachable offenses being cited remain largely similar to those raised earlier.
“In fact, there are more pieces of evidence now kasi may nadagdag, may nadagdag na attachments doon sa complaint. So we saw the impeachable offenses last year, they are similar to the impeachable offenses mentioned this year. And like I assured my colleagues, mayroon pong kaso,” Zamora told the Saturday News Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City.
She acknowledged that impeachment inevitably unfolds in a political environment, especially with the next elections drawing closer, but argued that members of the committee are gradually seeing that the process is anchored on a real cause and not on empty accusations or speculation.
“Well, of course, dahil paparating na nga po ang next elections, kaya again, we admit nga po this is a political process. But as we go along, I believe that our colleagues are seeing the cause that the members of the Committee on Justice are fighting for ika-nga,” Zamora noted.
“Paminsan po may nagtatanong sa atin kung may ebidensya ba, may point ba ito, may kaso ba? And I said, like before, sabi pareho naman po ‘yung kaso eh,” she added.
As questions continued to swirl around whether the House panel could invoke an exception to the bank secrecy law while handling impeachment proceedings, Zamora took the position that the exemption may apply to the committee’s work as well, even if the law does not state that point with complete clarity.
“Actually hindi po malinaw ‘yon. So dahil nakalagay naman po impeachment proceedings, ang nangyayari po sa House of Representatives ay impeachment proceedings. And I believe that we are covered or we fall under the exemption to the bank secrecy law,” Zamora stated.
At the same time, she pushed back against the expected objections from the Vice President’s lawyers, saying it was natural for counsel to attack the process and question the panel’s earlier ruling that the complaints were sufficient in form and in substance.
“In any case po, syempre sasabihin po ng abogado ng respondent na magkakaso sila dahil questionable ang proseso sa Committee on Justice dahil defective daw ang pag-declare namin na it is sufficient in form and that they are sufficient in substance,” Zamora pointed out.
She then said the committee did not make that ruling lightly, but went through the complaints closely and in full view of the public.
“Siyempre sasabihin po nila ‘yan dahil sila ang abogado ng respondent ‘di ba po. But as we, as everyone saw, inisa-isa po namin again ang mga provisions ang mga paragraphs ng bawat complaint. Yung dalawang complaint po we declare them to be sufficient in form dahil nakita natin that there is a verification, there is an endorsement, nandoon ‘yung mga pangalan ng partido, kompleto po at may listahan po tayo yan,” she explained.
“Sufficiency in substance sabi natin meron po dahil ang kailangan lang naman po doon is a recital of facts that will show the impeachable offenses. Meron po tayong listahan ng impeachable offenses. Nakita po natin ang recital of facts or ultimate facts,” Zamora added.
Zamora then drew the line between what the committee is required to find at this stage and what may still be presented later as evidence.
“Meaning po ano ba ‘yung ginawa mismo ng respondent? Nakalagay ba yan sa complaints? Hindi po natin hinahanap dito ang tinatawag ng mga abogado na evidenciary facts which are the facts that would. In short, yung ebidensya po mismo. Hindi pa po yan,” she argued.
“Ang kailangan lang na nakalagay sa complaint ay ‘yung specific act na ginawa po ng respondent sa isang impeachment complaint. At nakita natin na nakalagay po ‘yan. Kaya natin dine-declare na sufficient in substance. Kaya po napanood naman po ng lahat ang proseso ng Committee on Justice so we believed that we followed the requirements of our rules and the Constitution step by steps,” Zamora said.
Even after Duterte’s absence from the initial hearing, Zamora made clear that the Vice President may still take part in the next hearings as the panel moves toward the issue of probable cause.
“But as we said in the next hearings she may participate, she may participate through her lawyer and we will follow the Constitution, the rules, and afford her, her due process as dictated by the Supreme Court in the Duterte decision,” Zamora stressed.
