The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte is ready to face another impeachment complaint against her, in case one is filed by 2026 after the one-year bar rule.
VP Sara, lawyers 'ready' for 2026 impeachment complaint—spox
(From left) Vice President Sara Duterte and lawyer Michael Poa (Photos from Speaker's office, Facebook)
Lawyer Michael Poa, one of the 16 defense lawyers of the Vice President, said in an interview on GMA’s Unang Balita on Tuesday, July 29, that they are currently monitoring the developments regarding the halted impeachment proceedings against Duterte.
“Tingnan natin yung mga developments at kung dumating man ang pagkakataon na (Let’s see the development and if there’s a chance that) there will be another impeachment, for example, sabi nga nila (as they said), after the subject of the one-year bar, we will be ready to also face those allegations,” he explained.
The Supreme Court earlier declared as unconstitutional the impeachment complaint against Duterte, citing the one-year bar rule in the Constitution.
The House of Representatives, however, said they will file a Motion for Reconsideration.
Poa also belied allegations that the Vice President is trying to avoid answering the allegations as a recent survey showed 80 percent of the respondents want her to face the impeachment complaint.
“Definitely, hindi po (not really). In fact, we were ready to go to trial. Si VP nga mismo, maulit ko lang, sabi niya, talagang gusto niyang sagutin (The VP herself, I’ll just repeat, she said, she wants to answer), face on, head on, yung mga alegasyon (the allegations),” he said.
“And kami naman sa (us in the) defense team, we've been preparing all throughout since February and we can say that we were ready,” he added.
Aside from the impeachment case before the Senate, the lawyer cited similar allegations and cases before the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Ombudsman that they had faced and responded to.
Poa instead explained that the reason behind their petition to declare as unconstitutional the impeachment complaint was because of the obvious procedural and constitutional lapses in its approval.