House prosecutors: Sara Duterte’s defense all denial, no explanation

MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecutors are not buying Vice President Sara Duterte’s reasons for asking the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to dismiss her trial altogether.

Speaking on behalf of the House prosecution, Antonio Bucoy accused Vice President Sara Duterte of “wagging the dog” in her impeachment case. The idiom usually refers to a strategy where an official diverts attention from a scandal or failure with another issue.

Instead of addressing the allegations against her, he said she is only raising procedural objections to have the complaint dismissed. 

“Mas pinapaigting ang kahalagahan ng procedure, technicality, kaysa doon sa substance ng complaint. Dapat sagutin mo yung reklamo,” he said at a press briefing on Friday, June 27.  

(More importance is being given to procedure, technicalities, rather than the substance of the complaint. You should be answering the complaint itself.) 

Bucoy characterized it as a textbook tactic used by parties who avoid engaging with the charges and simply deny them, without explaining the basis for innocence.

“‘Yun hong walang maisagot sa substance [of the complaint] ang tututuunan nila ng pansin ‘yung techinical,” he said.  

(Those who have no response to the substance of the complaint will focus on the technicalities instead.)

Only denial, no explanation

The spokesperson recalled how Duterte employed the same approach during the House good government and public accountability committee’s probe into her agencies’ confidential fund use. 

He said Duterte failed to explain the allegedly fictitious names of beneficiaries who received confidential fund payments, as well as the reported irregularities in which her security personnel — rather than the designated special disbursing officers — handled the fund releases.

Even in her response to the articles of impeachment, he said Duterte has yet to offer a clear justification, or at least an explanation, as to how she is not guilty of the charges she faces.

The prosecution team coined it as a “general denial,” explaining that the vice president basically said “that’s not true” to each allegation. 

“Kung idedeny mo, sasabihin mo kung bakit. Sinabi mo ganito: ‘Hindi totoo ‘yan sapagkat…’ Wala siya nung ‘sapagkat,’” Bucoy said.  

(If you're going to deny something, you have to say why. You should say something like: “That’s not true because…” But she didn’t include the “because.”)

Duterte's forum shopping

In its 37-page reply to Duterte’s answer ad cautelam, the House prosecution panel asked the impeachment court to reject her request for dismissal, arguing that she engaged in “forum shopping.”

Forum shopping is defined as initiating multiple proceedings on the same cause to improve the chances of a favorable ruling. 

“The Answer Ad Cautelam is shopping for a friendlier forum which can hopefully accord relief that respondent has not obtained from her pending Supreme Court petition,” the reply read. 

The prosecution cited the vice president’s petition before the Supreme Court seeking to declare her impeachment null and void for the alleged violation of the one-year bar rule. She used the same argument in her answer ad cautelam. 

The prosecution has repeatedly rebutted this argument, even before Duterte filed her answer to the articles of impeachment.

What they said. Citing multiple jurisprudence, they said an impeachment complaint is considered initiated not upon the simple filing or endorsement, but upon referral to the House justice committee through the plenary. Another mode is when at least one-third of House members file it directly, which was the case for Duterte.

While Duterte argued the first three complaints were never referred, the prosecution maintains all were transmitted to the plenary within 10 session days, given that these are not the same as calendar days counted on a 24-hour basis.

'A sign of no defense'

Bucoy explained that Duterte’s answer is only “a sign of no defense.” If she had any defense, he said it would have been based on facts and not technicalities. 

Given these arguments, the prosecution said there should be no other course but to proceed to trial. If the Senate votes on Duterte’s motion to dismiss and approves it, Bucoy said there is nothing they could do to stop it, as the decision rests with the senator-judges.

However, he said they may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court if it comes to that. 

Still, Bucoy expressed hope it won’t reach that point, saying the prosecution continues to trust the impeachment process and in the senator-judges to uphold their oath and constitutional duty to try the case.

The House prosecution beat the deadline on Friday, filing a reply that not only challenged Duterte’s motion to dismiss but also took apart her defense to each article of impeachment.