Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte confirmed Thursday that she will not appear before the House Committee on Justice during its April 29 hearing — what could be the final session at the committee level on the impeachment complaints filed against her.
Defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison drew a firm constitutional line, arguing that evidence submitted to a House committee carries no legal weight as proof.
“What’s important for us to understand at this point is that the mere presentation of supposed evidence before a committee that is not authorized to conduct a trial does not really amount to proof,” Sison said. “Any evidence, whether it’s something you present in an ordinary place or in this impeachment proceeding, must still survive scrutiny. And when does that happen? It happens only in a proper trial, before a tribunal or a body that has jurisdiction to conduct a trial,” she added.
The defense team, speaking at an April 23 press conference, maintained that the proper venue for Duterte to answer the allegations is the Senate — the body the Constitution designates as the impeachment court.
“Kailangan lang natin basahin ang Constitution, sino ba ang impeachment court? Ang Committee on Justice? Hindi. Ito ba ang House of Representatives? Hindi rin,” Sison said. “So sino? According to the Constitution, ang impeachment court, if ever that will be constituted, ay ang Senado — the defense of the Vice President is ready to respond before the proper forum and during a fair trial.”
Defense spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa said Duterte’s non-appearance should not be read as an unwillingness to face the charges. “Hindi ibig sabihin nito na ayaw rumisponde ng ating Bise Presidente sa mga paratang,” he said, noting that the decision to stay away is anchored on the defense’s position regarding the House’s constitutional jurisdiction.
A pending petition before the Supreme Court seeking to stop the House proceedings further shapes the defense’s approach. Poa said participating in the hearings would contradict that legal challenge. “We filed a petition before the Supreme Court, and we have to be consistent with that position,” he said.
The team has also flagged the absence of cross-examination rights as a reason for withholding their defense. “We are not even allowed to cross-examine. What we’re saying is that if it does go to trial, let’s wait for the trial, wait for us to cross-examine so we can unmask all these witnesses against the Vice President and show you what really happened behind these allegations,” Poa said.
On April 29, the House panel is expected to take up allegations that Duterte made grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. Lawmakers have also examined financial records flagged by the Anti-Money Laundering Council as suspicious, involving transactions linked to Duterte and members of her family — allegations the vice president has denied, saying her financial record is “clean.”
Should the committee find probable cause, the complaint moves to the House plenary for a vote before being transmitted to the Senate for trial. “Vindication will come once it is presented in the impeachment court and we are able to cross-examine all the witnesses and the evidence,” Poa said.
