For the legal camp of Vice President Sara Duterte, a sitting Vice President cannot be criminally prosecuted while in office, as it urged the court to hear oral arguments on her motion to quash the grave threats cases filed against her.

In a virtual press briefing on Friday, Aug. 14, Atty. Paul Lawrence Lim, Duterte’s legal counsel in the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) grave threats cases, said the Vice President’s camp had filed a motion to quash, emphasizing the need for oral arguments because of the “far-reaching” consequences of the cases.

The position of Duterte’s camp is based on lack of jurisdiction, with Lim arguing that a regular court cannot hear a criminal case against a sitting Vice President who is an impeachable officer.

“Maaaring kasuhan pero hindi habang nakaupo (Can be charged, but not while in office),” Lim said, explaining the camp’s position that an impeachable official may be criminally prosecuted after leaving office.

Duterte’s camp has filed a motion to quash the criminal cases before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, asking that the charges be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Lim said the defense wants the court to allow both the prosecution and defense to present oral arguments before it rules on the motion.

He stressed that the issue goes beyond Duterte’s individual case because it could establish a precedent concerning other officials who are subject to impeachment.

“If a sitting Vice President may be indicted and prosecuted, then other incumbent impeachable officers such as the Ombudsman, members of the Constitutional Commissions, Supreme Court justices, and even the President, may also be indicted and prosecuted,” Lim said.

Under the Constitution, the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman are impeachable officers, Lim explained.

Lim said allowing the criminal prosecution of a sitting Vice President could potentially “open the floodgates” for criminal cases against other impeachable officials.

Among those who could be affected, he said, are the President, Ombudsman, members of the Constitutional Commissions, and members of the Supreme Court.

“It’s not only the VP who is an impeachable officer,” Lim said.

Duterte’s camp described the issue as one with “very far-reaching and serious” consequences, saying it should be thoroughly considered by the court.

Lim emphasized that the defense is not simply seeking relief for Duterte but is raising what it considers a significant constitutional question involving the separation of the impeachment process and criminal prosecution.

Lim was also asked whether Duterte would voluntarily surrender if the court rejects her motion to quash and subsequently issues an arrest warrant.

He did not disclose the defense’s specific next legal move, saying the legal team is prepared to pursue the available remedies.

“There are possible remedies that we can use,” Lim said, adding that the question is which legal remedy the defense would ultimately use.

The issue of a possible arrest warrant has already been raised in relation to Duterte’s motion to quash and the defense’s request for deferment of proceedings.

Lim said Duterte remains in good spirits and is prepared to face the legal proceedings.

“She’s ready to confront the legal proceedings,” he said, adding that the Vice President wanted to clear her name.

The grave threats cases were filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court.

Duterte’s legal team has challenged the cases through the motion to quash, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction over the Vice President while she remains in office.

The prosecution and defense are expected to present their respective positions on the motion, which could determine whether the criminal proceedings will proceed to the next stage.

If the motion to quash is granted, the cases could be dismissed. If it is denied, the cases could proceed to arraignment and, eventually, trial, subject to further legal remedies available to the defense.

Lim said the defense is prepared for either outcome and stressed that its position should not be interpreted as an argument that impeachable officials are permanently immune from criminal prosecution.

Rather, Lim said the argument concerns the proper timing and jurisdiction for criminal proceedings involving a sitting impeachable officer.

The defense said the matter ultimately involves determining what the law permits while an official remains in office.

Lim noted that the court’s ruling on Duterte’s motion to quash could have implications beyond the grave threats cases, particularly on how criminal prosecution may be pursued against sitting impeachable officials. 

RELATED STORY: