Lawyer in impeachment complaint vs. VP Sara waives right to reply

Impeachment complainant, lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, has waived his right to reply to the answer of Vice President Sara Duterte on the impeachment complaints, saying "the filing of a reply would serve no useful purpose and would only delay the proceedings."

"Complainant respectfully manifests that he is waiving the filing of a reply and prays that this manifestation be noted, and that the Honorable Committee proceed with the determination of the existence of sufficient grounds for impeachment," Cabrera added in his manifestation sent to the House committee on justice.

The panel earlier found the complaint sufficient in form and substance and would proceed with the hearings.

Under the House's rules on impeachment, the Vice President has 10 days to answer the complaint after she received the notice on March 5.

In its reply, the Duterte camp asked the House justice panel to dismiss the impeachment complaints against her, saying the allegations against her were not impeachable offenses.  

“The impeachment complaints brazenly accuse the Vice President of entering into a supposed 'contract to kill' yet they fail to present any shred of proof that any such contract ever existed,” the reply read.

The Vice President's reply said the impeachment complainants relied on “exaggerated conclusions dressed up as fact.”

“Even worse, this conclusion is used as the basis for further unsupported assertions that the Vice President allegedly violated the Constitution, betrayed public trust, committed high crimes, and manifested a willful intent to subvert constitutional order, to incite or condone violence against constitutionally-vested officials, and to destabilize the lawful functioning of government,” it said.

"Allegations of such magnitude cannot be sustained by exaggeration and inference alone,” the reply added.

In his manifestation, Cabrera said the Vice President's answer "raises no new factual matters and consists mainly of general denials, legal conclusions, and procedural objections."

"Notably, respondent failed to specifically deny the material allegations of the complaint. The Answer does not squarely traverse the ultimate facts alleged and effectively amounts to a non-answer," he said.

"Respondent's claim that the complaint lacks "ultimate facts" rests on a basic misapprehension of pleading rules, as it improperly demands evidentiary detail at this stage. The defenses raised are purely legal and may be resolved by the Honorable Committee without the need for a reply," he added. —LDF, GMA Integrated News