Ridon: VP Sara Duterte request to dismiss impeachment not in Constitution

Vice President Sara Duterte's request for the Senate Impeachment Court to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against her cannot be done as it is not allowed by the Constitution, a member of the House Prosecution Panel said Monday.

House Impeachment Prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Representative Terry Ridon said that neither the Constitution nor the Senate Rules on Impeachment allows this.

Duterte's request is contained in her reply to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives to the Senate.

"Wala na po yan. It is too late in the day para ho pigilan po yung paglilitis. Tuloy na tuloy po ang paglilitis sa July 6 hanggang sa paghatol ng ating Senate Impeachment Court kung conviction o acquittal laban po sa pangalawang pangulo. Wala pong motion to dismiss sa ating Rules on Senate Impeachment. Wala din po ito sa ating Konstitusyon," Ridon said in an online interview today.

(That's not possible. It is too late in the day to try and stop the trial. The trial will proceed on July 6 until the Senate Impeachment Court reaches conviction or acquittal against the Vice President. There is no motion to dismiss in the Senate Impeachment Rules or in the Constitution.)

"As soon as nakapagpadala po ang House sa Senado ng Articles of Impeachment, kailangan po itong magtuloy sa full trial proceedings. So hindi uubra na magkaroon po ng dismissal at this stage of the proceedings," he added.

(As soon as the House transmits the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, the process must continue to the full trial proceedings. So there cannot be a dismissal at this stage of the proceedings.)

Due process

Ridon also said Duterte's claim that the Articles of Impeachment against her are void, saying they are tainted with partiality and bad faith, has no basis.

"Parang wala namang batayan yung ganoon pong posisyon. Una sa lahat, ito po ay dumaan sa iba't ibang mga kapulungan. So ito po ay isinumite sa Kongreso, dumaan po sa plenaryo, dumaan po sa Komite ng Justice, nagkaroon po ng proceedings doon, pinagpasyahan po ng 257 na mga kinatawan para i-impeach po ang pangalawang Pangulo at i-transmit po sa Senado," he said.

(There is no basis to support that position. First of all, the articles have been through various processes. These were submitted to the House, went through the plenary, went through the committee on Justice where it went through proceedings, and 257 congressmen and congresswomen voted to impeach the Vice President and transmit the articles to the Senate.)

"So, tingin ko po, sa lahat po ng mga pagkakataon po na ito, nagkaroon po ng oportunidad ang pangalawang pangulo, ang kanya pong mga kalyado, na tumugon doon sa kabuuan po ng proseso. So tingin ko hindi natin masasabi na meron pong bad faith at a partiality ito pong naging proseso pong pinagdaanan ng Articles of Impeachment," Ridon added.

(So, in my view, at all these points the Vice President and her allies had the opportunity to respond to the process. I don't think we can say the process that the Articles of Impeachment has been through has been done in bad faith and with partiality.)

The legislator also addressed the points raised by VP Duterte in her reply.

On the vice president invoking freedom of expression regarding the Article of Impeachment covering her declaration that she had contracted someone to assassinate on the threats against President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, Ridon pointed out that "grave threats is basically one of the exceptions to freedom of expression."

"Ibig sabihin, meron pong mga nakukulong dahil po sa pagbabanta. So hindi po totoo na yan po ay nakabatay po sa freedom of expression. Pangalawa, hindi lang naman po isang beses ginawa po ng pangalawang pangulo yun pong pagbabanta. So nagbanta po siya na ipapapatay ang atin pong Pangulo at ilan pong miyembro ng kanyang pamilya. Pero pangalawa, nagbanta rin po siya doon po sa gusto hong pagpugot ng ulo sa atin pong pangulo in an entirely separate incident," he said.

(This means you can be jailed if you make threats. So it's not true that this is covered by freedom of expression. Second, the Vice President did not just do this one time. She also talked about wanting to behead him in an entirely separate incident.)

COA disallowances, OVP confi funds

Ridon also debunked the Vice President's claim that the Notices of Disallowance issued by the Commission on Audit on the confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education were not yet final.

"Una po sa lahat, hindi po totoo na wala pong finality yun pong COA level disallowances. Kasi particular po doon sa P73 million, ito po ay final and executory already at the level of the Commission on Audit. Pangalawa, yun pong Notice of Disallowance po ng around P300 million, ito po ay continuing. Pero unless mag-appeal ang atin pong pangalawang Pangulo, this is also executory," he said.

(First of all, it's not true that the COA disallowances are not final. In particular the one on P73 millioin in OVP confidential funds, this is already final and executory at the COA level. Secondly, the notice of disallowance on the around P300 million, this is continuing. But unless the Vice President appeals it, this is also executory.)

"So hindi po totoo yun pong sinasabi niya na this is still not final. Kasi, as far as the P73 million Notice of Disallowance is concerned, at the level of the COA, ito po ay kailangan nang bayaran personal ng atin pong pangalawang Pangulo," he added.

(So it's not true what she said that this is still not final. As far as the P73 million is concerned, at the COA level this must be personally repaid by the Vice President.)

Ridon also said that the issue of whether there was personal gain or not in the alleged misuse of confidential funds is immaterial in an impeachment trial.

"Hindi po issue yung wala kang personal gain. Issue po ang personal gain sa plunder. Pero hindi po ito issue sa mga notice of disallowance at yun pong pagpapasauli po ng pera ng Commission on Audit," Ridon said.

"So huwag ho nating ilihis, wag ho nating linlangin ang ating mga kababayan. Hindi po issue kung wala ho siyang personal gain sa bagay po na ito. Ang issue po on confidential funds misuse ay yung misuse po mismo. Maling paggamit ng pondo ng bayan, yan po ang ipinasasauli sa pangalawang pangulo mismo," Ridon stated.

(Personal gain is not the issue. Personal gain is an issue with plunder. But it is not an issue in the notices of disallowance and the COA's order to return the money.

(So let's not try to deflect and deceive the Filipino public. It's not an issue whether or not she had personal gain. the issue of confidential funds misuse is the misuse itself. The wrong use of the nation's coffers, that is why the COA wants the Vice President to return the money.)

AMLC records

The House prosecutor also denied the defense panel's claim that records of the Anti Money Laundering Council are confidential.

"Well, una sa lahat, hindi totoo na absolute confidentiality po yun pong AMLC. Kasi una sa lahat, empowered naman po ang AMLC para magkaroon po ng information sharing sa mga law enforcement agencies," Ridon explained.

(First of all, it's not true that the AMLC records have absolute confidentiality. The AMLC is empowered with information-sharing with law enforcement agencies.)

"Pangalawa, ito po ay paglilitis. So, ibig sabihin, lahat ng mga ebidensya na makapagtuturo na meron pong paggalaw po ng pera at meron pong mga offenses related thereto, puwede pong buksan ito ng Senate Impeachment Court. Puwede pong gawin din ito ng AMLC. So huwag po natin again linlangin ang tao na hindi po puwedeng gamitin ang mga ebidensya na ito dahil relevant po ito doon sa pagpapakita po ng tagong yaman, hindi maipaliwanag na yaman ng ating pong pangalawang pangulo," he added.

(Secondly, this is a trial. This means all the evidence that points to the movement of money and the offenses related thereto may be opened by the Senate Impeachment Court. The AMLC may also do this. So let's not deceive people into thinking that this evidence may not be used because it is relevant to showing concealed wealth that the Vice President cannot explain away.)

Ridon also pointed out that Duterte may have inadvertently implicated individuals in the bribery allegations against her when she said that there was no evidence to prove that the cash given to several officials of the Department of Education came from her.

"Well, isang bagay po yan na kailangan po nga mapatunayan sa paglilitis po mismo. Pero alam po ninyo, yung mga nag-abot ng pera doon po sa mga nakatanggap nito pong pondo pong ito ay talaga pong mga malalapit na mga tauhan, deputies pa nga, ng atin pong pangalawang Pangulo. Ibig sabihin, makikita po natin doon na talagang meron pong pagpayag ang atin pong pangalawang pangulo doon sa pamamahagi po ng pera," Ridon stated.

(This is something that must be proven true at the trial itself. But you know, these people who handed money to the recipience are close deputies of the Vice President. This means we can see that there was approval from her to distribute the funds.)

"Kasi ibig sabihin, pag yan po ang posisyon ng atin pong pangalawang pangulo, eh di dapat kulong yung mga tao niya. Kasi yung mga tao niya nagbigay po ng pera, hindi ba? So if that is her actual defense, eh di parang nilaglag po niya yung mga tauhan po niya, mga pinakamalalapit po niyang mga deputies," he added.

(This means that if that is the position of the Vice President, then her people will be the ones to be jailed. Because it's her people who gave the money, right? So if that is her actual defense, it's like she's throwing these people, her closest deputies, under the bus.)

Davao sheriff

On former Davao City Sheriff Abe Andres' pronouncement that he would rather not be made a part of the impeachment trial, Ridon said, "This is irrespective of whatever personal positions one may have on a particular proceeding. So if the subpoena is requested, then he will have to comply to that subpoena."

Andres, who was punched by Duterte when she was Davao City mayor, was listed as a witness of the House Prosecution Panel for the Article of Impeachment on the vice president's threats against the president, first lady, and former speaker.

"He is being asked to be a witness para ipakita po yung history and pattern of violent actuations ng ating pong pangalawang pangulo. So, absolutely relevant yun pong testimonya nito pong sheriff po na ito doon po sa paglilitis po ng ating pong pangalawang pangulo," Ridon explained.

(He is being asked to be a witness to show the history and pattern of violent actuations of the Vice President. So his testimony is absolutely relevant.)

BIR box of tax records

On the pending manifestation of the House Prosecution Panel to open the sealed BIR box containing Duterte and her husband's tax records, Ridon said, "Relevant po yung opening of the BIR box at unsealing po ng BIR documents ng mag-asawang Duterte-Carpio dahil makakapagbigay po ito ng most complete picture noon pong kayamanan ng atin pong pangalawang pangulo mula 2000, I think around 2009 up until 2024."

(The opening of the BIR box and the unsealing of the BIR documents of the Duterte-Carpio couple are relevant because it will give the most complete picture of the vice president's wealth from around 2009 to 2024.)

"Basically terminated na yung pre-trial proceedings. Ang mangyayari na po, ang bagay po na ito at lahat po ng mga manifestation, motions po ng magkabilang panig ay pagdedesisyunan na po ng Senate Impeachment Court. So hopefully by July 6, isa po itong bagay na madesisyunan na po sa araw po na yan," Ridon added.

(The pre-trial proceedings are terminated. So now, all the manifestations and motions of both sides will be decided on by the Senate impeachment court. So hopefully by July 6 this will be one of the things decided on that day.)

When asked if the Senate Impeachment Court can compel Vice President Duterte to attend the impeachment trial as the respondent, Ridon replied, "I don't think merong mga requirements po kasi [I don't think there are requirements] to attend, physical attendance, whether just as a respondent or defendant or even as a witness."

"Pero very clear din po in the rules na kailangan lang po magkaroon ng order ang [But it's also very clear in the rules that there must be an order from the] Senate Impeachment Court for an impeachable officer or a respondent to appear before the Senate Impeachment Court. That matter has not yet been undertaken in our previous orders of the Senate Impeachment Court. So it's something that we are also expecting the court to do," Ridon added.

"Pero again, whether the court can in fact compel the Vice President to attend in pursuit of this order, I don't think so kasi meron din po doon sa rules itself na kung hindi man ho sumipot yung pong respondent, meron pong pagtatala lamang na hindi po niya pagsipot doon sa proceedings [because it's in the rules that if the respondent does not show up, it will just be noted in the records their non-attendance at the proceedings]," he said. — BM, GMA News