House prosecution panel spokesperson Lanao del Sur 2nd district Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong is taunting impeachment respondent Vice President Sara Duterte's legal team for allegedly having nothing to offer in terms of counter-evidence.

This, despite Duterte's tapping of a highly-regarded law firm for her defense in her upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

“Fortun Narvasa [&] Salazar,” Adiong said, referring to the defense law firm.

According to the Mindanao solon, the defense’s core strategy appears to be to ask the impeachment court to dismiss the case even before the trial can start. This way, the evidence wouldn't even get tested before the senator-judges.

“Kumbaga kung i-summarize mo, ang gusto lang talaga nila is ma-dismiss ‘yung kaso. Wala sa Constitution na mayroong choice ang Senado na i-dismiss ang kaso,” Adiong said.

(When you summary it, what they really want is for the case to be dismissed. The Constitution does not give the Senate the choice to dismiss the case.)

Adiong, the move to seek dismissal reveals weakness in the defense’s ability to confront the substance of the impeachment complaint and the four articles of impeachment.

“Sa palagay ko, the reason why they wanted to dismiss the case, appealing or praying for the court to dismiss the case right away or outright dismissal, it’s because they don’t have anything to offer as a counter evidence to refute the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment,” he noted.

(In my view, the reason they wanted dismissal—appealing or praying for the court to dismiss the case right away or outright—is because they have nothing to present as counter evidence to refute the allegations in the articles of impeachment.)

He said the Constitution gives the Senate impeachment court the role of trying and deciding the case, not dismissing it outright before the presentation of evidence.

“Ang choice lang talaga doon is to have a full trial and then reach judgment whether to acquit or to convict. Mahirap mo kasing sagutin din ang isang bagay, ‘yung kanilang naging answer doon, na ang kinu-question nila is ‘yung entire process,” Adiong stressed.

(The only choice is to have a full trial and then reach judgment, whether to acquit or convict. It’s difficult to answer something when their response is to question the entire process.)

The prosecution panel has argued that the procedural and constitutional objections raised by the defense are not new and have been repeatedly aired since the House proceedings.

“Kung titignan mo ‘yung kanilang objection (If you look at their objection), it did not happen just now, it did not happen during the confirmation hearings of the justice committee. It already came out last year pa, and rehashed lang talaga siya (it's really just rehashed),” Adiong said.