Solons hit Escudero, Cayetano: Issues vs Sara Duterte are real

MANILA, Philippines — Contrary to claims made by senators who voted to archive the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, the issues raised have a basis and are not merely part of politicking, Makabayan bloc lawmakers said on Thursday.

ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, in a press briefing on Thursday, singled out Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano and Senate President Francis Escudero over their statements when they explained their vote to archive the impeachment — as both senators believe that politics drove the crafting of the complaints.

READ: Senate archives impeachment case against VP Sara Duterte

“For them, the impeachment against Vice President Sara is merely political. One even said, ‘If you really don’t want Sara, then just defeat her in 2028.’ The Senate President said her enemies are simply using the issue, and that he won’t let the Senate be used against her rivals in the House — obviously referring to the House Speaker,” Tinio said in Filipino.

“The problem is they seem to belittle the legitimacy of the issue — brushing it aside, dismissing the issue of confidential funds. For them, it’s not a real concern; it’s just politics, and you’re using it because you’ll be running against Vice President Sara Duterte in 2028,” he added in Filipino.

According to Tinio, issues involving the confidential funds (CF) allocated to Duterte’s office are legitimate concerns, and they were tackled not because of politics but because of a yearning to hold officials accountable.

Tinio said there is a need to ascertain where the CF allocations went, especially since Duterte is being accused of giving confidential payouts to informants with fictitious names — like a certain Mary Grace Piattos, who does not have any record in the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) database.

“But isn’t the P612.5 million in confidential funds an issue? What happened to that money?” Tinio asked.

“This is a huge issue involving a large amount of public funds. It’s not enough — and unacceptable to the Filipino people — that the funds were supposedly given to Mary Grace Piattos and her associates, and that’s the end of it. So yes, confidential funds are a real issue,” he added.

On Wednesday night, the Senate voted 19-4 to archive the articles of impeachment against Duterte. As every senator was given the chance to explain their vote, Cayetano said that he was voting to archive the complaint, underscoring that impeachment should not serve as revenge for political rivals.

In the process, Cayetano said that opponents who do not want Duterte to become president by 2028 should just defeat her in that year’s elections.

“Isn’t what the Supreme Court said correct? There should be impeachment, but it shouldn’t be used by political rivals. If you don’t want Vice President Sara to become president, just defeat her in 2028,” Cayetano said in Filipino.

“Now, if she truly did something wrong, then impeach her — but do it the right way,” he added.

Escudero, who also voted to archive the impeachment, asked if those who are pushing for impeachment are really seeking accountability or are just against the Dutertes.

“Today, Mr. President, the very supremacy of the Supreme Court is being called into question, and with it, the very foundation of the rule of law.

As Senate President, and as a member of this chamber and the Bar, I will not sit idly by and allow this,” Escudero said.

“To those seeking to disregard the Supreme Court’s decision, I ask this simple question […] are you truly for accountability or simply anti-Duterte?

Do you truly respect and want to preserve the Constitution, or do you simply hate the Vice President?

Are you serving the nation’s interest or protecting and pursuing your own personal ambitions or agenda?” he asked.
But Tinio believes this is mere posturing and an exposure of the senators’ true stand.

“Even though there’s still a motion for reconsideration, they pushed the matter into the agenda — it’s clear that the senators wanted a big stage to publicly express their position and vote against the impeachment,” he said.

“And that’s what we saw — in the past, many senators would at least maintain the posture of impartiality, since they serve as senator-judges. But yesterday, that was gone. They were convinced the impeachment was already dead. Even the Senate President and some senators revealed their true stance and colors regarding the articles of impeachment,” he added.

Last February 5, Duterte was impeached after 215 House members from the 19th Congress filed and signed a fourth complaint, which was based on allegations of misuse of confidential funds in her offices, threats against ranking officials, and other possible violations of the 1987 Constitution.

The articles of impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate on the same day, following the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that a trial must begin promptly if at least one-third of all House members — or 102 out of 306 — endorse the complaint.

READ: House impeaches Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate

But in February, two petitions seeking to halt the impeachment complaints against Duterte were filed before the Supreme Court. One of the petitions came from a group of Mindanao-based lawyers who argued that the House failed to observe constitutional rules requiring it to act on filed impeachment complaints within 10 session days.

Duterte herself, represented by allied lawyers including her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, also asked the SC to stop the impeachment proceedings on the basis that it violated constitutional provisions stating that only one impeachment complaint will be initiated against a sitting official per year.

READ: VP Sara Duterte files petition at SC to stop impeachment moves against her

Last July 25, SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the SC unanimously deemed the articles of impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate as unconstitutional for violating the 1987 Constitution’s one-year bar rule. This prompted the Senate to schedule a discussion of the impeachment’s fate, to deliberate whether the Senate impeachment court should continue or not. /jpv/abc

 

(2025/08/07-12:22)

To read a full story, please click here to find out how to subscribe.