Denial queen

Deny. Deny. Deny. That seems to be the legal strategy of Vice President Sara Duterte as she faces impending trial before the Senate High Court of Impeachment, beginning late July and probably, well into the 2025 Christmas season.

Sixteen lawyers drafted the “deny-all” reply of the impeached Vice president to the Articles of Impeachment (AI) filed by the House of Representatives (HOR) against her before the Senate High Court of Impeachment (HCI) on Feb. 5, 2025.

The denials are contained in the 32-page answer ad cautelam (with caution) to the seven AI filed with the Senate after office hours on June 23, 2025, the last day of the 10 working days deadline set by the Senate of the 19th Congress for Sara to reply.

The 16 lawyers sought the dismissal of the impeachment case because: 1) It is void ab initio. 2) There are no statements of ultimate facts, and for that reason, “it is nothing more than a scrap of paper.” And 3) It is a clear abuse of the impeachment process.

Article I is plotting to assassinate President Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez. Sara allegedly contracted an assassin to kill the three.

Article II is malversation of public funds to the tune of P612 million. For instance, a P125-million confidential fund was created for Sara on Dec. 20, 2022. The same day the whole amount was withdrawn by Sara’s special assistant, Gina Acosta, which cash was carted into a vehicle and brought to a private house. After 11 days, the entire P125 million was gone.

To justify the miracle of the missing millions, Sara submitted hundreds of manufactured receipts, many bearing names of restaurants, food snacks, fictitious people.

One alleged recipient, Mary Grace Piattos, has no record of birth, death or marriage, but received P70,000 in “medicines.” Note: Sara was education secretary, not the health secretary. The Office of the Vice President is not a drug store.

Article III is bribery and corruption. She bribed the DepEd people involved in procurement and biddings.

Article IV is unexplained wealth; V is conspiracy to commit murder (extrajudicial killings as Davao mayor); VI is sedition, insurrection and political destabilization and Article VII, the totality of respondent’s behavior makes her unfit to be the VP, having betrayed the public trust and committed violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption.

The replies of Sara’s 16 lawyers:

Re Article I, there is no impeachable offense. The allegations to kill are based on an online broadcast of Nov. 23, 2024 and “are not only misleading and self-serving, but worse, are mere conclusions of facts and law;” are exaggerations and speculations not supported by evidence.

Article II. The allegations are not factual; all conclusions, hence, conjectural. “No final decision exists declaring the disbursements illegal, unjustifiable, exorbitant, excessive, extravagant and/or unconscionable.”

Article III. The House failed to show evidence the (bribe) money indeed came from the Vice President or that she committed acts of bribery. There is no case of graft and corruption.

Article IV. That Sara has ill-gotten wealth is a conjecture. That Sara has joint bank accounts with former president Rodrigo Duterte, whose transactions amounted to P2 billion in 2006 to 2015, is based solely on an online article, a “hearsay twice removed and thus, unreliable.”

Former senator Antonio Trillanes IV had produced documents showing father and daughter maintained joint bank accounts with the Bank of PI. The entries run into billions. The 16 Sara lawyers contend senator Trillanes’ “obtention of bank documents and records, assuming they even exist and are reliable, violates the confidentiality of bank deposits under Republic Act 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) and renders these documents inadmissible.”

In past impeachment proceedings, the defendant’s refusal to open his bank deposit records was used against him. The senators declared him (Chief Justice Renato Corona) guilty of ill-gotten wealth.

The 1987 Constitution requires a public officer to submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth upon assumption of office and as often as may be required by law. Also, the ombudsman can demand the opening of bank deposit records of a suspect public official.

Article V. Declarations that Sara committed murder and conspiracy to commit murder for being part of extrajudicial killings “rest entirely on the uncorroborated and questionable testimony of SPO4 Arturo Lascañas, whose credibility had long been doubted.”

Now under the Witness Protection Program, Lascañas is a former Davao City cop. He claimed to have been instructed by Rodrigo Duterte and Sara Duterte to carry out the extrajudicial killings and their cover-up.

Article VI, acts of political destabilization: “No specific acts constituting said offenses were stated in the complaint.” “Article VI simply seeks to punish the Vice President for voicing dissent against the President, the First Lady and the current administration in general.” The HOR simply dislikes the VP and her family, claim the lawyers.

Article VII “does not contain any factual declarations purporting to constitute any impeachable offense.” Thus, there is nothing to answer.

The HOR impeachment spokesman, lawyer Antonio Bucoy, says Sara 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 HOR prosecution team sneers at Sara’s deny tactics as a “general denial,” with the Vice President basically saying “that’s not true” to each allegation.

“You should be answering the complaint itself,” Bucoy tells the Vice President. Instead of addressing the allegations against her, the spokesman said, Sara is only raising procedural objections to have the complaint dismissed.

Will the Senate dismiss the impeachment case? In the past, a mere walkout by the Prosecution triggered a People Power that ousted an impeached president.

Guess what a dismissal will trigger.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]