MAYPAJO, Caloocan City Analyzing Vice President 'Inday' Sara Duterte-Carpio's arguments in her motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint filed against her, what we see is her, as a lawyer, doing everything in the book to muddle the issues that support the proofs she indeed committed impeachable deed while she served as secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd) whilst she was sitting as the second highest official of the land.

And House prosecutors describes Sara Duterte’s defense as "all denial (and) no explanation." So they're not buying her reasons for asking the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to dismiss her trial altogether.
Speaking on behalf of the House prosecution, litigation lawyer Antonio Bucoy accused VP Sara of “wagging the dog” as she is diverting attention from the scandal she has been implicated with by raising procedural objections to have the impeachment complaint against her dismissed.

Incredibly, she is giving more importance to procedure, technicalities, rather than the substance of the complaint. The fact is that what former president Rodrigo 'Rody' Duterte’s daughter should be doing is to answer the complaint itself.

Legal minds view Inday's strategy as a textbook tactic to avoid engaging with the charges and simply deny them, without explaining the basis for her presumed innocence. As Atty. Bucoy aptly points out,
"those who have no response to the substance of (a) complaint will (often) focus on . . . technicalities instead.
He recalled how the vice president employed the same approach during the House good government and public accountability committee’s probe into her agencies’ confidential fund use during which she ignobly failed to explain the allegedly fictitious names of beneficiaries who received confidential fund payments, as well as the reported irregularities in which her security personnel—rather than the designated special disbursing officers—handled the fund releases.

The truth is that in responding to the articles of impeachment, VP Duterte has yet to offer a clear justification, or at least an explanation, as to how she is not guilty of the charges she faces. Basically, what she is doing is using the weakest form of defense—general denial—by saying that all the allegations laid against her are “not true.”

The reaction of the prosecution's spokesperson in the vernacular made us smile (or smirk): “Kung ide-deny mo, sasabihin mo kung bakit. Sinabi mo ganito: ‘Hindi totoo ‘yan sapagkat . . .’ Wala siya nung ‘sapagkat,’” Bucoy said.

Moreover, in reply to the VP’s answer ad cautelam, the House prosecution panel argued that she initiated multiple proceedings on the same cause that adds up to forum shopping, just to improve her chances of a favorable ruling.

The prosecution cited the vice president’s petition before the Supreme Court seeking to declare her impeachment null and void for the alleged violation of the one-year bar rule. She used the same argument in her answer ad cautelam.

Given these arguments, there should be no other course but to proceed to trial. But if the Senate votes on Inday's motion to dismiss and approves it, then there is nothing that can be done to stop it as the decision rests with the senator-judges.

However, the matter may be elevated to the Supreme Court. We just hope that it won’t reach to this point, counting the fact that we still continue to believe and trust our impeachment process and also in the senator-judges who we expect will uphold their oath and constitutional duty to try the case.

* * *

FOR your comments or suggestions, complaints or requests, just send a message through my email at cipcab2006@yahoo.com or text me at cellphone numbers 09171656792 or 09171592256 during office hours from Monday to Friday. Thank you and mabuhay!