Former Bayan Muna congressman Neri Colmenares opposes the motion to dismiss demanded by VP Sara Duterte in her Answer to the impeachment complaint pending before the Impeachment Court.
“Art. XI of the Constitution obligates the Senate to try and decide all cases of impeachment, and dismissing the impeachment complaint outright will defeat the only remaining accountability mechanism against impeachable officials. It will also deprive the people and taxpayers of the answer to their question as to where public funds in the custody of VP Duterte went and whether the recipients of these funds like Mary Grace Piattos actually exist”, declared Atty. Neri Colmenares, who serves as counsel for impeachment complainants.
“The impeachment court cannot dismiss outright the impeachment case not only because the constitution requires the Senate to first try the case m, but also because the arguments for VP Duterte’s against the Articles of Impeachment are without constitutional and legal basis,” he added
“VP Duterte argues that the articles of impeachment is void ab initio for violating the One-Year Bar Rule under the Constitution which provides that “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year”. There is only but one impeachment proceeding pending before the Senate and it is surprising for VP Duterte to claim that more than one impeachment proceedings have been initiated” countered Colmenares who was a public prosecutor in the impeachment cases against Ombudsman Merciditas Gutierrez and CJ Renato Corona.
“Her claim that the Secretary General “withheld the referral of the First 3 Impeachment Complaints” despite Rule II Section 3 of the Rules of the House which provides that an impeachment complaint “shall be filed with the office of the Secretary General and immediately referred to the Speaker is also without basis.
“Whatever acts (or omissions) committed by the Secretary General may or may not violate the Rules of the House, but it does not necessarily violate the constitutional prohibition against more than one “impeachment proceedings” per year. Otherwise, the only accountability mechanism left for the people and taxpayers against misuse of public funds by impeachable officials may be defeated by the mere acts of the Secretary-General” said Colmenares.
“Dismissing the Articles of Impeachment pending before the Senate on the ground that there were other impeachment complaints filed is dangerous as it may be used in the future to repeat what transpired during the impeachment of former Pres. Gloria Arroyo where an Arroyo supporter files an impeachment complaint, and demands that it be transmitted immediately to preempt the filing of genuine impeachment complaints and failure of the SecGen to refer the complaint “immediately” will practically defeat the entire impeachment process. The Senate impeachment court must conduct trial and require VP Duterte to answer the facts alleged in the impeachment articles and not dismiss it outright.”
Colmenares also opposed the assertion of VP Duterte that the complaint does not allege “ultimate facts”. The Supreme Court in Guillermo vs PIA has defined ultimate facts as “facts, that if proven true, justify the remedy demanded”. The Complaint allege that VP Duterte gave at least Php 125 million to fictitious recipients like “Mary Grace Piattos”. If this is true then it justifies the demand that she be convicted and removed from office. That is an ultimate fact, the truthfulness of which must be subjected to a trial. VP Duterte cannot claim that an allegation of fact is not an ultimate fact merely because she claims it to be untrue. Otherwise, no impeachment complaint will prosper if the accused-respondent claims it to be untrue”, Colmenares concluded. #
