NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
House Prosecutors Urge Senate To Begin Trial; VP Duterte's Defense Called Misleading And Baseless
House prosecutors have called on the Senate Impeachment Court to move forward with the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, rejecting her defense as a collection of falsehoods, procedural distractions, and legal misdirection.
Filed on Friday, the prosecution’s Reply challenges Duterte’s Answer ad cautelam—a preliminary defense she submitted in hopes of halting the impeachment process. The Reply, signed by House Minority Leader and lead prosecutor Marcelino C. Libanan, argues that her response is “full of falsehoods, misleading claims, and baseless procedural objections.”
“The Filipino people have a fundamental right to witness this process unfold. No bloodbath is necessary. Let the trial begin,” the House panel stated, emphasizing that the public deserves transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.
No Room for Evasion
The House panel insists that the seriousness of the charges against Duterte warrants a full trial. They argue that her tactics are clearly designed to avoid substantive scrutiny of the allegations.
“These Articles of Impeachment highlight respondent Duterte’s unfitness for public office,” the Reply reads, asserting that she must be held accountable before the people—not shielded by technicalities.
The prosecution also addressed Duterte’s key argument: that the Senate lacks jurisdiction due to a supposed failure to formally transmit the Articles of Impeachment. This claim, the Reply counters, is both misleading and contradictory.
“Duterte herself acknowledged receiving the Articles and filed a response,” the panel pointed out. “It is rather strange to deny the Senate’s jurisdiction while simultaneously participating in its process.”
Legal Arguments Disputed
Duterte’s reliance on certain Senate rules and Supreme Court cases to argue procedural flaws was also met with sharp rebuttal.
Her invocation of Senate Resolution No. 1013—which she claimed invalidated the proceedings—was dismissed as legally irrelevant. The prosecution clarified that the resolution was never adopted and holds no legal weight.
They also rejected her use of the Balag v. Senate ruling, saying Duterte misrepresented the decision’s actual content. Contrary to her claim, the prosecution noted, the ruling affirms the Senate’s continuity in performing non-legislative roles such as impeachment trials, regardless of Congress transitions.
Filed on Friday, the prosecution’s Reply challenges Duterte’s Answer ad cautelam—a preliminary defense she submitted in hopes of halting the impeachment process. The Reply, signed by House Minority Leader and lead prosecutor Marcelino C. Libanan, argues that her response is “full of falsehoods, misleading claims, and baseless procedural objections.”
“The Filipino people have a fundamental right to witness this process unfold. No bloodbath is necessary. Let the trial begin,” the House panel stated, emphasizing that the public deserves transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.
No Room for Evasion
The House panel insists that the seriousness of the charges against Duterte warrants a full trial. They argue that her tactics are clearly designed to avoid substantive scrutiny of the allegations.
“These Articles of Impeachment highlight respondent Duterte’s unfitness for public office,” the Reply reads, asserting that she must be held accountable before the people—not shielded by technicalities.
The prosecution also addressed Duterte’s key argument: that the Senate lacks jurisdiction due to a supposed failure to formally transmit the Articles of Impeachment. This claim, the Reply counters, is both misleading and contradictory.
“Duterte herself acknowledged receiving the Articles and filed a response,” the panel pointed out. “It is rather strange to deny the Senate’s jurisdiction while simultaneously participating in its process.”
Legal Arguments Disputed
Duterte’s reliance on certain Senate rules and Supreme Court cases to argue procedural flaws was also met with sharp rebuttal.
Her invocation of Senate Resolution No. 1013—which she claimed invalidated the proceedings—was dismissed as legally irrelevant. The prosecution clarified that the resolution was never adopted and holds no legal weight.
They also rejected her use of the Balag v. Senate ruling, saying Duterte misrepresented the decision’s actual content. Contrary to her claim, the prosecution noted, the ruling affirms the Senate’s continuity in performing non-legislative roles such as impeachment trials, regardless of Congress transitions.
Due Process and Public Scrutiny
Responding to Duterte’s allegation that she was denied due process, the prosecution reminded the Senate that under Rule IV of the impeachment rules, a verified complaint signed by one-third of the House automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment—eliminating the need for a committee hearing or further participation at that stage.
The real opportunity for a full defense, they said, is during the Senate trial, not before.
They also defended the inclusion of Duterte’s public statements and interviews as evidence, calling her attempt to exclude them “selective and self-serving.”
“It is inconsistent for the Vice President to cite media appearances when convenient, yet reject them as evidence when they prove damaging,” they argued.
A Call to Proceed
In closing, the House prosecutors painted Duterte’s strategy as an effort to delay, mislead, and avoid public scrutiny.
“It is obvious from a simple reading of the Answer Ad Cautelam that the only legal strategy of the defense is to have the case dismissed and avoid trial,” they wrote.
Reaffirming the constitutional and public importance of impeachment, the panel asked the Senate to fulfill its role as an impeachment court: hold a public trial, reach a verdict, and—if warranted—impose the penalty of removal from office and perpetual disqualification.
“The time for delay is over. Let the trial begin,” they concluded.
Responding to Duterte’s allegation that she was denied due process, the prosecution reminded the Senate that under Rule IV of the impeachment rules, a verified complaint signed by one-third of the House automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment—eliminating the need for a committee hearing or further participation at that stage.
The real opportunity for a full defense, they said, is during the Senate trial, not before.
They also defended the inclusion of Duterte’s public statements and interviews as evidence, calling her attempt to exclude them “selective and self-serving.”
“It is inconsistent for the Vice President to cite media appearances when convenient, yet reject them as evidence when they prove damaging,” they argued.
A Call to Proceed
In closing, the House prosecutors painted Duterte’s strategy as an effort to delay, mislead, and avoid public scrutiny.
“It is obvious from a simple reading of the Answer Ad Cautelam that the only legal strategy of the defense is to have the case dismissed and avoid trial,” they wrote.
Reaffirming the constitutional and public importance of impeachment, the panel asked the Senate to fulfill its role as an impeachment court: hold a public trial, reach a verdict, and—if warranted—impose the penalty of removal from office and perpetual disqualification.
“The time for delay is over. Let the trial begin,” they concluded.
Due Process and Public Scrutiny
Responding to Duterte’s allegation that she was denied due process, the prosecution reminded the Senate that under Rule IV of the impeachment rules, a verified complaint signed by one-third of the House automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment—eliminating the need for a committee hearing or further participation at that stage.
The real opportunity for a full defense, they said, is during the Senate trial, not before.
They also defended the inclusion of Duterte’s public statements and interviews as evidence, calling her attempt to exclude them “selective and self-serving.”
“It is inconsistent for the Vice President to cite media appearances when convenient, yet reject them as evidence when they prove damaging,” they argued.
A Call to Proceed
In closing, the House prosecutors painted Duterte’s strategy as an effort to delay, mislead, and avoid public scrutiny.
“It is obvious from a simple reading of the Answer Ad Cautelam that the only legal strategy of the defense is to have the case dismissed and avoid trial,” they wrote.
Reaffirming the constitutional and public importance of impeachment, the panel asked the Senate to fulfill its role as an impeachment court: hold a public trial, reach a verdict, and—if warranted—impose the penalty of removal from office and perpetual disqualification.
“The time for delay is over. Let the trial begin,” they concluded.
Responding to Duterte’s allegation that she was denied due process, the prosecution reminded the Senate that under Rule IV of the impeachment rules, a verified complaint signed by one-third of the House automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment—eliminating the need for a committee hearing or further participation at that stage.
The real opportunity for a full defense, they said, is during the Senate trial, not before.
They also defended the inclusion of Duterte’s public statements and interviews as evidence, calling her attempt to exclude them “selective and self-serving.”
“It is inconsistent for the Vice President to cite media appearances when convenient, yet reject them as evidence when they prove damaging,” they argued.
A Call to Proceed
In closing, the House prosecutors painted Duterte’s strategy as an effort to delay, mislead, and avoid public scrutiny.
“It is obvious from a simple reading of the Answer Ad Cautelam that the only legal strategy of the defense is to have the case dismissed and avoid trial,” they wrote.
Reaffirming the constitutional and public importance of impeachment, the panel asked the Senate to fulfill its role as an impeachment court: hold a public trial, reach a verdict, and—if warranted—impose the penalty of removal from office and perpetual disqualification.
“The time for delay is over. Let the trial begin,” they concluded.
Jun 27, 2025
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
