Photo credit: Congress PH

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte should move forward without distraction, according to House prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon and former Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, who criticized a recent Senate proceeding they described as a political show fueled by questionable testimony.

The two pushed back against allegations raised involving supposed witnesses, arguing that the proceedings appear aimed at diverting public attention away from the impeachment case against Duterte.

Ridon strongly denied claims made by witness Jowly Cadiao, who linked him to the delivery of a suitcase.

“Kasinungalingan ang testimonya ni Jowly Cadiao. Walang maleta na idineliver sa akin sa kahit anumang panahon o sa kahit saan mang lugar,” Ridon, who also chairs the House Committee on Public Accounts, said.

The lawmaker maintained that the allegations were fabricated and insisted that they would not affect the House prosecution panel’s preparations for the impeachment proceedings.

“Tandaan: Tuloy ang impeachment trial. Walang kasinungalingan o gawa-gawang testimonya ang makapipigil sa House prosecution panel na magtuloy sa paglalahad ng katotohanan sa paglilitis ng Pangalawang Pangulo,” Ridon stated.

The Senate activity comes as the chamber continues to face questions over leadership changes and debates surrounding the authority and scope of the Blue Ribbon Committee’s proceedings. Critics of the hearings have argued that issues being raised are already the subject of ongoing legal cases and should instead be addressed before the courts.

Barbers echoed Ridon’s position, saying individuals making allegations should present their claims in the proper legal venue, especially after some of them have already been sued by personalities they implicated in previous Senate hearings.

“Sa korte na lang kayo magpaliwanag,” Barbers said.

The former lawmaker, who served as lead chairperson of the House Quad Committee during the 19th Congress and previously headed the House Committee on Dangerous Drugs, accused those behind the Senate activity of attempting to shift attention away from Duterte’s impeachment and toward other controversies, including allegations involving flood control projects.

“While I cannot comment on the case I filed against these people, I would like to point out that the ongoing meeting is a serious political destabilization effort and meant to divert attention from the impeachment of VP Sara to the alleged flood control scandal. The people can discern that the show is about discrediting the House of Representatives as well as the ICC. The proper fora for such show are the local courts under whose jurisdictions the cases now fall and the ICC that has already ruled time and again as to its jurisdiction over complaints against former President Rodrigo Duterte,” Barbers said.

The International Criminal Court has continued to be a point of contention in Philippine politics following its investigation into the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign. Supporters of the ICC maintain that the tribunal retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member of the court, while Duterte allies have repeatedly challenged that position.

Barbers also questioned the credibility of the allegations raised during the Senate proceedings, arguing that the claims lacked direct evidence.

“That’s incredible! This is the tone now being sung by these people. Imagine their statements as to the source of the alleged payout money. Not a single one of them ever saw nor touched the alleged money. All they are saying are maletas, paper bags and envelopes. Any lawyer worth his salt will never dignify such story-telling-a-lie by any witness. I hope that the proper courts are taking note of this charade in the name of justice,” Barbers said.

Despite the controversy surrounding the Senate proceedings, Ridon and Barbers maintained that the impeachment case against the Vice President should continue through the constitutional process and be decided based on evidence presented during trial rather than allegations raised outside the formal proceedings.