The House prosecution panel has dismissed Vice President Sara Duterte's formal response to the Articles of Impeachment as a mere rehash, arguing it fails to provide substantive counter-evidence. Representative Zia Alonto Adiong, the panel's spokesperson, stated that Duterte's 51-page document relies on technicalities and constitutional arguments rather than addressing the core accusations.
Duterte's Defense: Technicalities and Constitutional Claims
In her submitted answer, Vice President Duterte asserted that the impeachment proceedings are invalid, claiming they were conducted in bad faith and with bias. She addressed each of the four Articles of Impeachment point by point, including allegations of misuse of confidential funds and unexplained wealth. Duterte argued that she cannot be charged based on the Commission on Audit's (COA) Notices of Disallowances, as these are not yet final. She also denied any elements of graft and corruption, stating that the funds were legally obtained following recommendations from the Department of Budget and Management and with approval from Malacañang.
Denial of Bribery and Threat Allegations
The Vice President firmly denied allegations that she bribed Department of Education (DepEd) officials, claiming there is no evidence that the money came from her. On the fourth Article of Impeachment concerning grave threats against President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, Duterte invoked freedom of expression. She explained that her statements were merely responses to a reporter's question about Operation Romanov and that she had no intention to cause harm.
Panel's Rebuttal: No Absolute Freedom
Adiong countered that there is no absolute freedom of expression, especially when it involves direct threats against the President, as seen on television. He emphasized that the panel has moved beyond constitutional issues and that Duterte's camp has failed to present solid evidence to counter the accusations. The prosecution panel maintains that the Vice President's response is a rehash of previous arguments and does not address the merits of the case.
