San Juan City Representative Ysabel Zamora, set to serve as a prosecutor in the impeachment trial, has validated that the House of Representatives acted within the bounds of the Constitution and due process when impeaching Vice President Sara Duterte.

Zamora’s comments come in response to Vice President Sara Duterte’s petition to the Supreme Court, challenging the House’s impeachment complaint. The representative posits that there was no abuse of power concerning the delay in referring three impeachment complaints to the Office of the Speaker.

No Grave Abuse in Deliberation Process

Zamora clarifies that the House members were carefully considering which impeachment complaint to pursue. “It was the request of the Congressmen to look further into the complaints before it was moved to the Committee on Justice,” Zamora said. She emphasizes there was “no grave abuse of discretion” or “lack of due process” in composing the fourth impeachment complaint.

“Everyone was made aware, copies of the complaint were circulated, and the lawmakers have read it. It was the consensus of a lot of Congressmen to consolidate all of the three complaints into one,” she expanded.

Adherence to One-Year Ban Provision

The lawmaker also defends the timing of the impeachment process, asserting that it did not violate the one-year ban stipulated in the Constitution. She explains that according to the Francisco vs. House of Representatives case, the ban’s countdown starts when the impeachment proceedings are officially initiated, by endorsing a complaint to the Committee on Justice.

“It is not the mere filing of a complaint that activates the one-year period,” Zamora declares. “Therefore, I believe that our process adheres to the limits and requirements established by the Constitution and our own rules,” she adds.

Interpreting Legal Tactics

While Zamora acknowledges the legal right of the Vice President’s camp to pursue relief from the Supreme Court, she questions the intent behind such a move. “Delay tactics are common in legal proceedings. If someone does not have a strong case, they may file appeals to prolong the process,” she observes.

Despite the potential delay, Zamora remains optimistic. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will see through these petitions and recognize that we must proceed with this political exercise, moving forward with the impeachment trial,” she asserts.

Vice President’s Legal Stance

Lawyer Sheila Sison, representing the Vice President, argues against the House’s apparent independence in setting its own rules for impeachment proceedings. “The question remains whether this unbridled discretion is permitted. We respectfully ask the Supreme Court to decide if the House can have this discretion,” she states.

She reassures the public that the Vice President remains willing to face any accusations. “Sa tingin ko, walang contradiction sa statement ni Vice President na siya ay naayosaninapunongganinawanghumerapanghukumangdinasyon,” Sison notes, meaning, “There is no contradiction in the Vice President’s willingness to face charges.”

Conclusion: Moving Forward

The constitutional and legal debates surrounding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte highlight the intricate balance between legislative independence and judicial oversight. As the impeachment trial progresses, public attention will remain focused on the adherence to legal procedures.

Despite delays and legal challenges, the lawmakers’ consensus and constitutional compliance as outlined by Representative Zamora signal a commitment to upholding the democratic processes enshrined in the Constitution.