The House of Representatives is set to dedicate Monday’s plenary session almost entirely to the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, with lawmakers expected to vote on the Articles of Impeachment after sponsorship and interpellation of the committee report.
Manila Representative Joel Chua said the process on the House floor is already in place following the approval of the impeachment report by the House Committee on Justice.
The committee earlier found probable cause in two impeachment complaints through a unanimous 53-0 vote before later approving the committee report and attached Articles of Impeachment in another unanimous 55-0 vote. Lawmakers were then given time to review the articles and supporting evidence ahead of the anticipated May 11 plenary vote.
“On Monday, the only agenda of the House will be the impeachment,” Chua said in an interview over dzMM, explaining that lawmakers will first be allowed to raise questions before the chamber proceeds to voting.
Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro, who chairs the House Committee on Justice, is expected to sponsor and defend the committee report during plenary deliberations. The sponsorship will be followed by interpellation and eventually the floor vote.
Under the 1987 Constitution, at least one-third of House members, or 106 votes from the 318-member chamber, are needed to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial. Chua, however, said the number of lawmakers backing the move has already exceeded that requirement.
“Conservatively, we have spoken with around 200 lawmakers who have signified support,” he said.
According to Chua, support among legislators increased after subsequent hearings tackled issues involving Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and records from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
He said some lawmakers changed their positions after discussions on the financial records and the alleged lack of response from the Vice President’s camp during the proceedings. Chua also noted that many legislators were seeing a shift in public sentiment within their respective constituencies.
The impeachment complaint is anchored on four Articles of Impeachment. Article I concerns the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education. Article II focuses on alleged unexplained wealth, SALN discrepancies, and P6.77 billion in suspicious AMLC-covered transactions linked to Duterte and her spouse. Article III deals with alleged bribery and cash payouts to Department of Education officials, while Article IV covers allegations involving an assassination plot, grave threats, and inciting to sedition.
Chua maintained that the evidence presented before the committee established more than enough basis for probable cause, adding that the respondent’s camp failed to present counter-evidence during the hearings because they did not attend the proceedings.
He also stressed that the House observed fairness and due process throughout the inquiry by repeatedly notifying Duterte and giving her opportunities to participate in the hearings.
The lawmaker added that only evidence formally submitted before the committee could be considered part of the official record.
If the House votes to impeach, Chua said the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate could happen within the same week.
He added that the House could also elect its prosecution panel by Tuesday or Wednesday, with possible members including Representatives Luistro, Chel Diokno, Leila de Lima, Rodge Gutierrez, Keith Flores, and Bel Zamora.
Chua further argued that even if Duterte resigns from office, Senate proceedings should continue because the Articles of Impeachment also seek perpetual disqualification from holding public office aside from removal from office.
For Chua, the House has already completed the difficult part of the process by gathering evidence and establishing the official record, leaving Monday’s session focused on fulfilling the chamber’s constitutional duty to elevate the case to the Senate.