The House prosecution on Friday rejected the statements made by Vice President Sara Duterte about the impeachment proceedings being marred by “bending (of) the law,” saying that she has only to look at her own issues on confidential fund use to see a demonstration of the laws being manipulated for her benefit.

House trial spokesperson Renee Co of the Kabataan Party-list said the clear evidence of bent laws that has been seen so far in the impeachment proceedings is from the alleged anomalous spending of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) under the leadership of the Vice President.

“Imagine thousands of acknowledgment receipts submitted at ni-isang official receipt wala. Madaming acknowledgement receipts ang hindi (and not one official receipt. Many acknowledgement receipts are not) acceptable use of confidential funds,” Co said at a press conference.

“If there’s anything that has to be answered with regards kung paano na-observe ‘yung laws, ‘yung rules, yung regulations (to how rules, regulations, and laws are observed), it should be VP Sara Duterte.”

Co said the prosecution is still waiting for an explanation from the defense team of the Vice President with regard to the findings of the Commission on Audit (COA) on the irregular use and liquidation of confidential funds by the OVP and the DepEd.

House impeachment team adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers pointed out that Duterte did not identify which law was supposedly bent or how the alleged violation occurred.

“Hindi ko alam kung saan banda ‘yung may bending of the law. Kung ang tinutukoy dito ay itong proseso ng impeachment, nagsalita na ang ating Korte Suprema at sinabi na ito ay sang-ayon sa ating Saligang Batas, sang-ayon din yung ginawang clarificatory hearing sa House of Representatives, so hindi ko matumbok kung saan ‘yung sinasabi na meron bending of the law (I don’t know where there is bending of the law. If they are referring to the impeachment process, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is according to the Constitution, same as the clarificatory hearings at the House of Representatives. So, I can’t pinpoint where they said there is a bending of the law),” Barbers said.

“If ang kanyang tinutukoy ‘yung tungkol sa ebidensya na nilalatag ng prosecution, sa panig ng depensa, sila dapat magpatunay na itong mga ina-allege dito sa articles of impeachment ay mapapatunayan o madedebunk sa pamamagitan ng ebidensya na hawak ng depensa (If she is referring to the evidence being presented by the prosecution, the defense panel should prove that the allegations in the articles of impeachment can be debunked through evidence held by the defense).”

Counsel for the prosecution lawyer Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said it was very troubling to hear the Vice President describe the impeachment proceedings as “magulo (disorderly)” and “bending the law.”

“This sweeping accusation necessarily casts doubts on the integrity of this constitutional process, not just the process itself but the Impeachment Court and, of course, ultimately the presiding officer who is responsible for the conduct of the proceedings and the rulings being issued,” Tolosa said.

“If you’re saying there’s bending the law happening here – is she saying there are unlawful acts being done in this impeachment proceedings that are being tolerated by the impeachment court, by the presiding officer? I think that’s uncalled for.”

In the entire course of the impeachment trial, Tolosa said, the prosecution has always respected the rulings of the presiding officer, Senator Francis Escudero, even when these were not favorable to their side.

He said the presiding officer has consistently endeavored to conduct the trial in a fair and orderly manner in accordance with the Constitution and the rules.

He noted that even the defense, at their press conferences, have always stated that they think the presiding officer has been fair to both parties.

“But we will leave it to the judicious discretion of the presiding officer on how he will appreciate this, if this constitutes an attack on the integrity of the constitutional process and the constitutional institution of the impeachment court,” Tolosa said. (PNA)