A HOUSE of Representatives impeachment trial spokesperson on Wednesday said the defense team of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte is pushing for the outright dismissal of the impeachment case because it lacks counterevidence to refute the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment.
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, a House trial spokesperson, said that while Duterte’s official answer was lengthy, it largely focused on stopping the proceedings instead of directly addressing the charges.
‘Although their response is quite voluminous and even comes with an executive summary, the core of it is really to halt the process rather than confront the allegations,’ Adiong said.
He explained that the House prosecution panel opted to file a manifestation instead of a point-by-point reply, arguing that there was nothing substantial to respond to.
‘But our position on that is exactly why the House prosecution team simply submitted a manifestation-because how can you respond to something that, in truth, does not require any answer,’ Adiong explained.
According to Adiong, the defense’s main objective is to have the case dismissed even before trial begins-a move he stressed is not provided for under the Constitution.
‘The Constitution does not give the Senate Impeachment Court the option to dismiss the case outright. Its role is to conduct a full trial and then decide whether to acquit or convict,’ he said.
He added that the procedural and constitutional objections raised by the defense are not new and had already been brought up during House proceedings last year by Fortun Narvasa Salazar, Adiong said, referring to the defense law firm.
He said the Constitution gives the Senate Impeachment Court the role of trying and deciding the case, not dismissing it outright before the presentation of evidence.
Constitutional accountability
ADIONG said political pressure, disinformation, and personal attacks must not undermine constitutional accountability as the impeachment trial for Duterte moves forward.
He said public officials have a duty to uphold the Constitution regardless of political consequences, even as he acknowledged facing backlash for supporting the impeachment process.
He admitted that his position has drawn criticism, particularly in Mindanao, where Duterte remains politically popular.
‘The backlash has really affected me, but as I’ve been saying, this is the time when you have to stand firm in what you believe is right,’ Adiong said.
‘You have to stand by the Constitution because the Constitution is just a document-it’s on paper; it has words. If we do not live by it, then the Constitution will have no effect,’ he added.
The Senate Impeachment Court prepares for its June 18 pre-trial conference, where both prosecution and defense panels are expected to present their evidence, witnesses, and key legal issues.
According to Adiong, the impeachment proceedings serve as a test of whether public officials are willing to enforce accountability despite political pressure.
‘The Constitution will only be alive if we act on it. If there are impeachable officers who have committed violations such as culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, it is our duty to uphold this,’ he said.
The House of Representatives earlier impeached Duterte and transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, which is now convened as an impeachment court.
Adiong said lawmakers who supported the complaint did so after reviewing evidence and hearing testimonies during congressional proceedings.
‘We saw the evidence and heard the testimonies of the witnesses. We have no choice but to stand on the Constitution,’ he said.
He also warned that intimidation tactics and false accusations could create a chilling effect on efforts to hold powerful officials accountable.
Adiong said he and other members of the House prosecution panel face allegations from a group of former bodyguards of former Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co of Ako Bicol, who claimed they delivered cash-filled luggage to lawmakers. He has repeatedly denied the accusations.
‘If I give in to the backlash and to the spread of false information meant to damage my reputation, it would be as if I were supporting a culture of impunity,’ he said.
Disclose ‘Mary Grace Piatos’
ADIONG also said the defense panel must disclose early if it intends to present ‘Mary Grace Piatos’ as a witness in the impeachment trial.
Speaking ahead of the pre-trial conference, Adiong said both camps are expected to submit their evidence and list of witnesses, subject to possible objections.
‘The House prosecution team is ready to submit its evidence and potential witnesses. We also expect objections from the other side,’ he said.
He explained that the pre-trial will determine the overall flow of the proceedings, including how the court will handle witness disclosures, documentary evidence, and objections.
The issue surrounding ‘Piatos’ is linked to the confidential funds controversy, where lawmakers previously questioned certain names and acknowledgement receipts used in liquidation documents.
‘If they truly have someone named Mary Grace Piatos to present, it would be better for them so that there will be clarity,’ Adiong said.
‘There is no judgement here. The goal is to establish probable cause and give the defense the opportunity to respond,’ he said.
However, Adiong noted that if a witness claiming to be Piatos is presented, the defense must reconcile the signature with those appearing in the confidential fund documents.
‘The Mary Grace Piatos who will appear should have a signature that matches exactly the one in the acknowledgement receipts,’ he said.
He also cited the case of ‘Kokoy Villamin,’ whose signatures in separate receipts reportedly differ, raising the possibility of forensic examination during the trial.
‘It will be difficult to simply present a witness claiming to be Kokoy Villamin, because experts may be called to forensically examine the signature specimens,’ Adiong said.
The House prosecution panel, he added, is now preparing its evidence and witnesses for the upcoming pre-trial conference.