House: We didn’t reject VP Duterte’s lawyers, filing just incomplete
MANILA, Philippines — House spokesperson Princess Abante explained that the lower chamber did not reject the entry of appearance filed by Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyers for the impeachment trial.
“Walang tumanggi — tamang proseso lang ang sinunod,” she stressed.
(No one was refused — proper procedure was simply followed.)
In a statement on Thursday, June 19, Abante said the document delivered by a messenger to the House of Representatives’ gate in Quezon City on June 16 was unclear in both origin and nature.
The House did not receive the document as it was unclear in both its purpose and the proper procedure for submitting an entry of appearance.
Abante said the document did not contain a cover letter or a formal explanation, which is why it was not accepted.
“Walang cover letter, walang pormal na paliwanag. Kaya’t hindi ito agad tinanggap — hindi dahil tinanggihan, kundi dahil kailangang malinawan muna ang layunin at tamang pagproseso,” she said.
(There was no cover letter, no formal explanation. That’s why it wasn’t immediately accepted — not because it was rejected, but because the purpose and proper process needed to be clarified first.)
Abante said that Duterte seems to be insisting that the House is delaying the impeachment proceedings for “refusing” to accept the document.
However, what happened is that they could not receive the document that lacked credibility, she said.
“Walang masamang intensyon. Wala ring tinanggihan. Ang hinanap lang ay ang tamang pagkilala sa dokumento,” Abante added.
(There was no ill intent, and nothing was rejected. What was sought was simply the proper identification of the document.)
If this were an entry of appearance, the House spokesperson said Duterte’s counsel or herself could have said this immediately, so it would have been processed properly.
Not a requirement for trial to proceed
Despite this, Abante maintained that the lawyers’ entry of appearance in the Senate impeachment court is not crucial or a requirement for the trial to proceed. In other words, it should not be a reason for any delay.
“Ang Entry of Appearance ay hindi requirement para umusad ang impeachment trial. Wala itong epekto sa takbo ng paglilitis. At higit sa lahat, hindi ito ang dahilan kung bakit wala pang trial hanggang ngayon,” she said.
(The Entry of Appearance is not a requirement for the impeachment trial to proceed. It has no effect on the course of the proceedings. Most importantly, it is not the reason why the trial has yet to begin.)
The House spokesperson reiterated that the impeachment trial’s fate lies with the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and not the House of Representatives.
Onus is on the Senate
In response to impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol’s accusation that the House is causing delays, she clarified that the articles of impeachment have already been sent to the Senate.
The responsibility to move the process forward, she said, now lies with the court.
“Ang Kamara ay nakatupad na sa tungkulin nito. Naipasa na namin ang Articles of Impeachment sa Senado. Nasa kapangyarihan na po ng Senado ang susunod na hakbang. Kung may pagkaantala, hindi ito galing sa House,” Abante said.
(The House has fulfilled its duty. We have already transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The next step is now within the Senate’s authority. If there is any delay, it is not coming from the House.)
Abante appealed to Tongol not to use a procedural technicality like the entry of appearance to place blame on the House.
“Maliit na bagay ito na pinapalaking parang may masamang layunin, gayong malinaw naman ang intensyon ng staff — sumunod sa proseso, hindi magdulot ng abala,” she said.
(This is a small matter being blown out of proportion as if there were ill intent, when in fact the staff’s intention was clear — to follow procedure, not to cause disruption.)
Tongol, however, argued that the House has yet to comply with the impeachment court’s order to submit a certification stating that the articles of impeachment do not violate the Constitution.
Clarification sought
The House prosecution has explained that it would file pleadings in the following days, including the motion for clarification on the Senate’s order, which they believe is not technically clear.
The prosecutors said they would only comply with the order once the clarification is provided and is constitutional.
The panel also aims to understand the intention behind remanding the articles of impeachment, a procedure that is not found anywhere in the Constitution.
Abante stressed that the impeachment is not a soap opera or television drama; it’s a serious process that shouldn’t be focused on finding ways to act like the victim.
“[I]to ay tungkol sa katotohanan, pananagutan, at hustisya,” she said. (This is about truth, accountability, and justice.)
- Latest
- Trending
