EXPLAINER: What is probable cause in impeachment complaints?

The House committee on justice on Wednesday unanimously voted that there is probable cause to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte based on two impeachment complaints lodged against her.

The 53 members of the panel unanimously voted to declare that probable cause existed in the Saballa and Cabrera impeachment complaints.

But what does “probable cause” in impeachment cases mean?

In her closing statement during the April 29 hearing of the House justice committee, House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Rep. Leila de Lima shared the definition of probable cause based on existing jurisprudence.

She cited Alejandro v. Bernas, G.R. No. 179243, issued on September 17, 2011, which defined probable cause as “such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.”

This means that in a finding of probable cause, there is sufficient basis or evidence to push through with a case against an individual.

“Sa konteksto po ng impeachment, ang tanong natin, may sapat bang facts at circumstances na suportado ng ebidensya na makakakumbinsi sa atin na maniwala na ang isang impeachable offense tulad ng betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, ay maaaring naganap?” De Lima asked.

(In the context of impeachment, our question is, are there enough facts and circumstances supported by evidence that would convince us to believe that an impeachable offense like betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution may have happened?)

In the past four days of the impeachment hearing, possible evidence against the Vice President were laid out, including the following:

• The testimony of Ramil Madriaga about the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) alleged disbursement of P125 million in just 24 hours
• The testimonies of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) that they have no records of the alleged recipients of the funds, such as Mary Grace Piattos, Milky Secuya, and Kokoy Villamin
• Duterte’s non-inclusion of her cash on hand and cash in bank in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) from 2019 to 2024
• The report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) regarding the P6.7 billion in alleged covered and suspicious bank transactions of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, and
• The National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) findings that the Vice President’s alleged threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family may be considered inciting to sedition and grave threats.

“Walang duda, higit pa sa probable cause ang ating mga nakita sa impeachment proceedings na ito. Walang kuwestiyon, meron tayong sapat at makatwirang dahilan upang umusad ang prosesong ito at ma-impeach ang Bise Presidente,” De Lima said.

(Without a doubt, we found more than probable cause in these impeachment proceedings. There’s no question about it, we have enough and reasonable cause to proceed with this process and impeach the Vice President.)

For her part, House justice committee chairperson Rep. Gerville Luistro said the panel gave Duterte sufficient time to respond to the allegations and the pieces of possible evidence.

“We’ve been calling the Vice President every after presentation of evidence per ground. So in as far as compliance to due process is concerned, I think we have surpassed so much, whatever standard of due process is being required,” she said.

However, a finding of probable cause is not proof of one’s guilt.

“A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt,” De Lima said.

Following the panel’s hearings, they will forward a committee report on the findings to the House plenary within 60 session days.

At least 1/3 of the House members should vote to impeach the Vice President in order to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The impeachment trial shall be done in the Senate, where the senator-judges will decide if the Vice President should be convicted and removed from office, or acquitted.

In a statement, the Vice President’s camp said the results of the House justice panel’s impeachment proceedings were not unexpected, but maintained that the proceedings run contrary to “constitutional design.”

“We respectfully maintain that the proceedings before the committee departed from the constitutional design. Instead of confining itself to the verified complaints and their attachments, the process expanded into matters that properly belong to a full trial,” the Duterte camp said. — JMA, GMA News