Senate court to first tackle legal issues raised by Sara

Before any actual trial of Vice President Sara Duterte can begin, the Senate impeachment court may have to resolve first the issues she raised in her "answer ad cautelam," particularly the court's jurisdiction over her case and the reported violation of the constitutional one-year ban on multiple impeachment attempts.

- By RICHMOND MERCURIO

This was according to Senate impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol, who said the issues she raised would require deliberation and a ruling from the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. Duterte's lawyers filed her "answer ad cautelam"—conditional or cautious reply—last June 25.

"Now that there is answer ad cautelam and the House prosecutors I think were able to respond, it will be one of the first to be discussed on the first day of the convening of the impeachment court and after the senator-judges have done their swearing," Tongol told dwIZ in Filipino.

The Vice President's camp had argued that the impeachment complaint approved by the House on June 10 violated the Constitution's one-year ban on multiple impeachment attempts.

In response, House prosecutors submitted a certification attesting to the chamber's full compliance with Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution.

Tongol said Duterte's position would be subject to oral arguments and deliberations, not just between the prosecution and defense but also among senator-judges.

"If the defense raises affirmative defense, the impeachment court should decide on it, and both parties as well as senator-judges should debate on it. They will deliberate on it, and that's what we should wait for," he added.

He said both panels may still use the time before the convening of the 20th Congress on July 28 to buttress their respective cases.

Constitutional crisis For the spokesman of the 11-man House prosecution panel, an outright dismissal of the impeachment case against Duterte would lead to a constitutional crisis, as prosecutors would likely seek Supreme Court intervention, particularly through petition for certiorari with mandamus.