Finally, on with the impeachment trial
NOW that an impressive defense panel for Vice President Sara Duterte has been formed, the varied voices of dissent as to how the Senate handled the scheduling of the impeachment trial is beginning to die down.
There is no more doubt in anybody’s mind that the trial will proceed on the first working day of July 2025. But knowing how endlessly opinionated political pundits and the array of deans of colleges and universities are closely aligned with both sides as loyal partisans, speculations about the responses of each to the main complaints will continue.
We will continue to hear both panels respond to the question of how 215 members of the House of Representatives could have signed an impeachment complaint against Duterte on charges that include corruption, plotting to assassinate President Bongbong Marcos, involvement in extrajudicial killings, and incitement to insurrection and public disorder. Yet, House Secretary General Reginald Velasco disclosed that a third complaint by select members of the House of Representatives and by a group of religious workers, lawyers, and civil society workers in the House of Representatives against Duterte was filed on December 19 for betrayal of public trust.
Earlier, 70 members of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan had a single reason: betrayal of public trust over the illegal use and mishandling of confidential funds, specifically, committing “gross abuse of discretionary powers” over the ₱612.5 million confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
Indeed, where do these three earlier other specific complaints fall in the fourth complaint?
Can the earlier signatories of the three different complaints and who are part of the prosecution panel defend the specifics of the complaints?
Then, there is the issue raised how the prosecution panel will respond to the Commission of Audit’s certification that the office of Vice President fully complied with the procedural process like other agencies did, I.e., Office of the President, Department of Defense, Bureau of Immigrations, etc. who received annual confidential funds for their operations? How could these be construed as corruption?
On the other hand, how will the defense panel justify that a conditional death threat levelled at the President, the First Lady, and the House Speaker Martin Romualdez is not a crime?
The country will just wait another week for the full drama to unfold.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
