Ranking congressmen expressed on Tuesday, March 17 their collective frustration with the Consolidated Verified Answer Ad Cautelam submitted by impeachment respondent Vice President Sara Duterte to the House Committee on Justice.
La Union 1st district Rep. Paolo Ortega V, deputy speaker; Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua, Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability chairman; and Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, Committee on Public Accounts chairman, all found the Duterte camp's answer lacking despite its 15-page length.
“The Vice President continues to stonewall the allegations against her. This is not an answer at all. Instead of addressing the charges head-on, she chose to hide behind technicalities,” Ortega said in a statement.
Ortega, an endorser of one of the two remaining impeachment raps, said the Vice President’s submission raised more questions than answers, since it did not squarely address the material allegations cited in the complaints.
“Hindi po nasagot ang mga paratang. Iniiwasan ang pinaka-ugat ng isyu, at dinadaan sa procedural arguments na hindi naman tumutugon sa substance ng kaso (The allegations were not answered. The root of the issue was avoided, and instead it was diverted into procedural arguments that do not address the substance of the case)," he said.
Ortega also rejected claims by the Vice President’s lawyers that the Supreme Court (SC) had already cleared her. He noted that the high tribunal only ruled on procedural issues, not the merits of the previous complaint.
“They have to read both the [SC] decision and resolution again. The ruling did not junk the 2025 impeachment on substantive grounds, but only on procedural matters. In fact, the [SC] itself said that its ruling did not absolve the Vice President. That should be clear to everyone,” Ortega pointed out.
Chua, a member of the justice committee that has been overseeing the impeachment proceedings, says the Filipino people deserve clear answers from the Vice President.
“The Filipino people deserve the truth. What we see in the verified answer is not a direct response to the allegations, but an attempt to avoid a full discussion of the evidence,” Chua said in a separate statement.
He noted that instead of addressing the substance of the charges, the pleading relies heavily on technical arguments to seek the early dismissal of the case. He said this wasn't the purpose of an answer in the context of the impeachment proceedings.
“An answer should meet the allegations head-on. It should not be used to shut down the process before the evidence is even heard,” he stressed.
Chua said recent developments, including the surfacing of individuals and documentary materials that may be subject to scrutiny, make it even more important for the process to proceed, the quality of Duterte’s answer notwithstanding.
“As more information comes to light, including potential witnesses and financial records that may be examined under oath, it becomes even clearer why a full Senate impeachment trial is necessary,” said the Manila lawmaker.
Ridon, another justice panel member, echoed the statements of Ortega and Chua.
He then gave unsolicited but ultimately useful advice to the Vice President’s defense team. "They have to read the both SC decision and resolution again. The SC decision and resolution did not junk the 2025 Duterte impeachment on substantive grounds, but only on procedural matters. SC even said that their ruling did not absolve the Vice President," Ridon said.