SC urged anew to junk Sara Duterte bid to dismiss impeach raps

Akbayan party-list Representative Perci Cendaña on Friday asked the Supreme Court to junk Vice President Sara Duterte's bid to dismiss the impeachment case against her, saying questions on the matter can only be legally settled before the Senate impeachment court.

In his motion to intervene, Cendaña said the Vice President's petition is legally infirm because only one impeachment complaint was initiated against her—a submission which he said is compliant with the Charter.

"The Vice President's petition is legally unsound. Ang reklamo nila, na-violate raw ang one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints. Apat ang impeachment complaints na na-file, pero isa lang doon ang initiated, at 'yun ang verified complaint na ipinasa ng more than one-third ng House members," Ceñdana said in a statement.

(The Vice President's petition is legally unsound. They argue that the one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints was violated. Four impeachment complaints were filed, but only one was initiated, and that is the verified complaint that was passed by more than one-third of House members.)

Cendaña cited the Supreme Court decision on the Francisco v. House of Representatives, wherein the High Court ruled that an impeachment complaint is initiated either by: (1) the act of filing a complaint and its referral or endorsement of the complaint to the House Committee on Justice, or (2) the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment.

"Minabuti nating mag-file ng motion to intervene dahil malapit nang magsimula ang session ng 20th Congress. Naniniwala tayong sa Senado ang tamang venue para litisin ang impeachment complaint ni VP Sara—hindi sa Supreme Court. Kung dinidinig ng mataas na korte ang petition ng VP, dapat mas dinggin nila ang sambayanan," Cendaña said.

(We filed a motion to intervene because the 20th Congress is about to start. We believe that the Senate is the appropriate venue to try the impeachment case against the Vice President, not the Supreme Court. If the High Court is hearing out the Vice President, the more it should listen to the call of the people.)

"The three impeachment complaints were not referred to the Committee on Justice and do not qualify as initiated complaints since they were archived by the House plenary after the fourth impeachment complaint was endorsed by more than one-third of the House members. Only the fourth complaint qualifies as such. Therefore, lahat ng ginawa sa House ay ayon Rules of Impeachment na nakabatay sa Saligang Batas," Cendaña added.

(The House's actions on the impeachment complaints are all in accordance with the Constitution.) 

GMA News Online has requested comment from Duterte's legal team and the Office of the Vice President, but these have yet to respond as of posting time. 

Cendaña said the Supreme Court has the duty to ensure accountability of public officials.

"Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution and its doctrines? Or will it save Sara and other government officials who abuse power? Nagbabantay ang taumbayan (The people are watching)," Cendaña said.

Earlier, the House of Representatives also asked the Supreme Court to junk the Vice President's petition, arguing that questions about the impeachment are best discussed and resolved before the Senate impeachment court.

The SC required the House to submit information regarding the status of the first three impeachment complaints filed against Duterte, the exact dates these were endorsed, and whether the House Secretary General possesses discretion on when to transmit these to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

In a notice dated July 8, the SC en banc consolidated the petition filed by Duterte against the validity and constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint against her and the petition filed by lawyer Israelito Torreon and others seeking to declare the articles of impeachment null and void. — VDV, GMA Integrated News