Manila: A member of the 11-man House prosecution panel on Thursday asserted the legitimacy, constitutionality, and compliance with due process of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte amid legal challenges. In a television interview, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro dismissed claims that the verification process was flawed, emphasizing that the complaint was properly signed and affirmed by 215 members of the House of Representatives.
According to Philippines News Agency, Luistro also noted that Congress has the authority to set its own rules on impeachment. “First, ang sabi po nila (they said), we did not follow the rules on verification. It is clear in our Constitution that Congress shall promulgate its own rules on impeachment… And to be precise, we followed word for word the rules of the 19th Congress of the Philippines in as far as the verification is concerned,” she said. She also refuted allegations that the verification page was added after the complaint was filed.
“Second, they also made mention that the verification was only inserted days after the filing in the Senate. Hindi po ito totoo (This is not true),” Luistro said. She explained that the verification page was already incorporated when 215 lawmakers signed the complaint during the Feb. 5 caucus.
“It was on the same day, it was on the same occasion kung saan nanumpa po ang ating mga kongresista kaugnay ng verification na kinakailangan dito sa impeachment complaint na ito (where our congressmen took their oath regarding the verification required for this impeachment complaint),” she said. Luistro said many of the grounds for the impeachment complaint were already the subject of investigations in the House committees.
‘Let us all be reminded, most of the grounds (are the) subject matter (of) investigation in the Quad Comm and even in the Committee on Good Government,” she said. She also rejected claims that Duterte was denied due process. “As a matter of fact, a summons will be issued to her. She will be asked to answer, and she will be given time to present her evidence. This is what due process is all about,” she said.
Responding to accusations that the complaint violated the one-year impeachment rule, Luistro clarified the law allows only one impeachment per year but does not require it to be resolved within the same year. She noted that the one-year prohibition would apply until November 2025 if counted from the first three impeachment complaints, or February 2026 if counted from the consolidated fourth complaint.
“‘Yun pong sinasabing (That thing called) one-year prohibition period, it means one year from the date of filing. It does not mean within the year the same was filed,” Luistro said. Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe accused allies of the Duterte camp of trying to weaponize the Office of the Ombudsman against lawmakers who supported the impeachment complaint.
Reacting to Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez’s call for the suspension of House leaders accused of falsifying public documents, Dalipe denounced the move as a form of political retaliation. “The House remains steadfast in upholding transparency and accountability, regardless of political affiliations,” he said, as he expressed confidence that the Ombudsman would dismiss the suspension request.
“We trust that the Ombudsman will not allow itself to be used as a tool for political games and will dismiss this baseless request for preventive suspension.” He labeled the suspension call as a diversionary tactic aimed at shifting public attention away from the impeachment case.
He also questioned the timing of the complaint, saying it was meant to pressure the House and create a false narrative undermining its leadership. “The timing of this complaint is telling. It is meant to pressure the House and create a false narrative that undermines the integrity of its leadership,” he said. Dalipe said the suspension proposal is also meant to disrupt the work of the House.
He likewise defended the 2025 national budget process, calling allegations of budget insertions “misleading and baseless.” “Let’s be clear: the General Appropriations Bill is a product of rigorous, transparent, and lawful deliberations,” Dalipe said.
