Lawyer Lorna Kapunan, a private prosecutor tapped for Vice President Sara Duterte's upcoming Senate impeachment trial, has lectured the respondent's lawyers on the proper way to file an answer to the articles of impeachment.

Kapunan did so during a recent press conference wherein the House prosecution panel led by Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville "Jinky Bitrics" Luistro introduced the group of private prosecutors who joined the quest to convict Duterte.

The Duterte camp's written answer had earlier been emphatically dismissed by the solon-prosecutors as a "non-answer", since it allegedly didn't respond to the articles of impeachment and essentially sought outright dismissal of the case.

Kapunan echoed the House prosecutors' assessment, and at the same time chided the twice-impeached Duterte and her defense lawyers for the lackadaisical effort they showed.

“Kung meron kang ebidensiya, bakit ka takot na sagutin sa answer. I would have thought that the Vice President was more courageous and transparent, since sinabi ng kanyang mga spokesperson at defense team na ready na ready na sila,” she said.

(If you have evidence, why are you afraid to say it in your answer? I would have thought that the Vice President was more courageous and transparent, since her spokespersons and defense team said they were fully ready.)

Kapunan said the answer submitted by the Duterte camp to the Senate was voluminous, yet full of fluff in the form of annexes.

According to veteran litigator, these thick annexes or attachments were "not new" and had already been used in earlier filings before the Supreme Court (SC) and the House Committee on Justice.

“Annexes ng finile niya sa [SC], Annex na finile niya sa House Committee on Justice, puro annexes. Pag tinignan natin yung kanyang answer, eh wala namang allegations, wala namang statement kung ano yung ipiripresenta nila,” she noted.

(Her annexes filed with the [SC] and the House Committee on Justice are all annexes. When we look at her answer, there are no allegations, no statement of what they intend to present.)

Kapunan explained that a proper answer should have directly addressed the allegations in the four articles of impeachment against Duterte, rather than assail or repeat objections to the impeachment process.

“On all the articles they did not state, they did not deny. General denials lang pero hindi nila sinabi 'Dine-deny namin ito kasi ito ang ebidensya namin.' Ganon dapat ang sagot sa answer,” said the outspoken lawyer, who at this point sounded more like a teacher.

(They only gave general denials but did not say, ‘We deny this because here is our evidence.’ That is how an answer should be.)

“All four articles of impeachment, wala pong sinabi kung bakit dini-deny niya ang culpable violation of the Constitution, grave threats, bribery, unexplained wealth, betrayal of public trust,” she added.

(For all four articles of impeachment, there was no explanation of why she denies culpable violation of the Constitution, grave threats, bribery, unexplained wealth, betrayal of public trust.)

Simply put, Kapunan said the Vice President failed to give the prosecution and the public a clear idea of the evidence her camp intends to present in her defense.

“Wala siyang sinagot doon, wala sinabing we have witnesses to show or this is our evidence. Wala,” Kapunan said.

(She did not answer there, she did not say we have witnesses to show or this is our evidence. Nothing.)

“Kinuwestyon na naman niya, inulit na naman niya, jurisdiction, one-year ban, due process at tsaka partial daw ang House Committee on Justice, nag-mini-trial. Abusive daw ng coercive power sa subpoena, at gumawa pa ng sariling ebidensya ang House Committee on Justice beyond the impeachment complaints,” she added.

(She again questioned jurisdiction, the one‑year ban, due process, and claimed the House Committee on Justice was partial, held a mini‑trial, abused its subpoena power, and even created its own evidence beyond the impeachment complaints.)