The House prosecution panel on Monday filed a manifestation instead of a reply to Vice President Sara Duterte’s answer to the articles of impeachment, arguing that her submission raises no material factual issues requiring a substantive response.
House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil submitted the five-page manifestation to the Senate, where it was received by Senate Secretary General Renato Bantug Jr. at 11:15 a.m. Copies were also furnished to the Office of the Vice President and the law firm Fortun Narvasa & Salazar.
The 11-member prosecution panel said Duterte’s answer largely consisted of procedural, jurisdictional, and constitutional objections rather than factual arguments addressing the allegations against her.
“Under the applicable rules, the allegations and defenses in the Answer are deemed controverted even without a Reply,” the manifestation stated.
“More fundamentally, the Answer raises no material factual issue that requires a responsive pleading. It does not meaningfully engage the factual allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, but instead concentrates on procedural, jurisdictional, and constitutional objections directed against the continuation of the proceedings,” it added.
Duterte faces four articles of impeachment involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, bribery, unexplained wealth, and grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The prosecution panel said Duterte failed to directly address the allegations or explain why she should not be held liable for the impeachable offenses charged against her.
“This is evident across all four Articles, where respondent repeatedly asserts that she committed no impeachable offense,” the manifestation read.
“Yet beyond these general denials, the Answer offers no coherent factual narrative that directly refutes the charges set forth in the Articles of Impeachment,” it added.
According to the prosecutors, Duterte did not present her own account of events or provide explanations regarding the transactions cited in the impeachment complaint, including the alleged non-disclosure of cash on hand in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
The prosecution argued that the Vice President’s answer effectively seeks the dismissal of the case before the Senate impeachment court can hear evidence.
“In substance, therefore, the Answer does not function as a genuine response to the charges, but as an attempt to secure the outright dismissal of the impeachment case on threshold constitutional and procedural grounds,” the manifestation stated.
The prosecutors maintained that neither the Constitution nor the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials authorizes the outright dismissal of an impeachment case before trial.
They argued that the only recognized basis for terminating impeachment proceedings is an acquittal rendered by the impeachment court after a full hearing of the evidence.
The prosecution also said the Senate should refrain from ruling on Duterte’s jurisdictional and constitutional objections because similar issues are already pending before the Supreme Court.
“To the extent that these matters have been elevated for judicial determination, the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, cannot be placed in the position of reviewing or pre-empting issues currently pending before the Supreme Court,” the manifestation read.
The panel further argued that the Senate should not review the House’s impeachment proceedings because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases and enforce its own rules.
“At the same time, these objections go into the very core of the House’s exclusive power to initiate impeachment proceedings. This power cannot be subjected to review, revision, or nullification by the Senate acting as an Impeachment Court, without effectively disturbing the constitutional allocation of powers between the two Houses of Congress,” it added.
The prosecution concluded by urging the Senate impeachment court to proceed with the trial, arguing that additional pleadings would only delay proceedings that the Constitution requires to be conducted “forthwith.”
The Senate has yet to resolve its internal leadership dispute before commencing the impeachment trial, which initial reports indicate could begin in July.