VP Sara Duterte's impeachment dismissal request unconstitutional—prosecutor
A member of the House prosecution panel stated that Vice President Sara Duterte's request to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against her is not allowed by the Constitution. The impeachment trial, set to begin on July 6, will proceed, with dismissal deemed impossible.
Vice President Sara Duterte's request for the Senate Impeachment Court to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against her cannot be done as it is not allowed by the Constitution, a member of the House Prosecution Panel said Monday. House Impeachment Prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Representative Terry Ridon said that neither the Constitution nor the Senate Rules on Impeachment allows this. Duterte's request is contained in her reply to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives to the Senate. "That's not possible. It is too late in the day to try and stop the trial. The trial will proceed on July 6 until the Senate Impeachment Court reaches conviction or acquittal against the Vice President. There is no motion to dismiss in the Senate Impeachment Rules or in the Constitution," Ridon said in an online interview today. "As soon as the House transmits the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, the process must continue to the full trial proceedings. So there cannot be a dismissal at this stage of the proceedings," he added. Ridon also said Duterte's claim that the Articles of Impeachment against her are void, saying they are tainted with partiality and bad faith, has no basis. "There is no basis to support that position. First of all, the articles have been through various processes. These were submitted to the House, went through the plenary, went through the committee on Justice where it went through proceedings, and 257 congressmen and congresswomen voted to impeach the Vice President and transmit the articles to the Senate," he said. "So, in my view, at all these points the Vice President and her allies had the opportunity to respond to the process. I don't think we can say the process that the Articles of Impeachment has been through has been done in bad faith and with partiality," Ridon added. The legislator also addressed the points raised by VP Duterte in her reply. On the vice president invoking freedom of expression regarding the Article of Impeachment covering her declaration that she had contracted someone to assassinate on the threats against President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, Ridon pointed out that "grave threats is basically one of the exceptions to freedom of expression." "This means you can be jailed if you make threats. So it's not true that this is covered by freedom of expression. Second, the Vice President did not just do this one time. She also talked about wanting to behead him in an entirely separate incident," he said. Ridon also debunked the Vice President's claim that the Notices of Disallowance issued by the Commission on Audit on the confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education were not yet final. "First of all, it's not true that the COA disallowances are not final. In particular the one on P73 million in OVP confidential funds, this is already final and executory at the COA level. Secondly, the notice of disallowance on the around P300 million, this is continuing. But unless the Vice President appeals it, this is also executory," he said. "So it's not true what she said that this is still not final. As far as the P73 million Notice of Disallowance is concerned, at the COA level this must be personally repaid by the Vice President," he added. Ridon also said that the issue of whether there was personal gain or not in the alleged misuse of confidential funds is immaterial in an impeachment trial. "Personal gain is not the issue. Personal gain is an issue with plunder. But it is not an issue in the notices of disallowance and the COA's order to return the money. "So let's not try to deflect and deceive the Filipino public. It's not an issue whether or not she had personal gain. the issue of confidential funds misuse is the misuse itself. The wrong use of the nation's coffers, that is why the COA wants the Vice President to return the money," Ridon stated. Source: GMA News Philippines
多角的分析
副大統領府および教育省の機密資金に関する会計検査院（COA）の不交付通知（Notice of Disallowance）は、フィリピンの財政規律と説明責任の重要性を示唆している。特に7300万ペソの資金については、COAレベルで最終的かつ執行力があるとされることは、公的資金の管理における厳格な監査プロセスが機能していることを示している。これにより、公務員は資金の誤用に対して個人的な責任を問われる可能性があり、将来的な財政管理の透明性と効率性の向上につながる可能性がある。しかし、約3億ペソの通知が継続中であるという事実は、より広範な問題の存在を示唆しており、今後の詳細な監査と是正措置が求められる。
今回の弾劾裁判の進展は、フィリピンの政治的安定性に対する投資家の懸念を一時的に高める可能性がある。副大統領という高官が関与する弾劾手続きは、政策決定の遅延や不確実性を招くリスクがある。しかし、リドン議員が指摘するように、弾劾手続きが憲法と規則に従って進行する場合、法制度の堅牢性を示す機会ともなり得る。投資家は、法的手続きの行方と、それが将来の政治的安定に与える影響を注視するだろう。特に、機密資金の誤用に関するCOAの指摘は、政府の財政管理に対する監督の重要性を浮き彫りにし、投資家が重視するガバナンスの側面にも影響を与える可能性がある。
副大統領に対する弾劾手続きは、フィリピン社会における権力分立と説明責任の重要性を浮き彫りにしている。リドン議員が言及した「表現の自由」と「重大な脅迫」の境界線に関する議論は、公人の発言が社会に与える影響について、国民的な議論を促す可能性がある。また、機密資金の誤用に関するCOAの指摘と、それに対する副大統領の反論は、国民の税金がどのように使われているか、そしてその使途に対する透明性を求める声が高まるきっかけとなるだろう。特に、地方のコミュニティでは、公的資金の適切な使途が生活に直結するため、こうした問題への関心は高い。
副大統領への弾劾裁判は、国民の関心を集めている。テリー・リドン議員は、副大統領の却下要求が憲法に反すると明確に述べ、7月6日から始まる裁判の進行を強調した。これは、国民に対して、法的手続きが着実に進められること、そして司法の独立性が保たれることを示唆している。また、副大統領府や教育省の機密資金に関する会計検査院の指摘は、国民が納税者として、公的資金の使途に対する説明責任を求めていることを反映している。国民は、これらの手続きが公正かつ透明に進められ、最終的に国家の利益に資することを期待している。
背景・歴史的文脈
フィリピンにおける弾劾手続きは、大統領、副大統領、最高裁判事、会計検査院長官、オンブズマンなどの高官に対する国民の代表者による訴追メカニズムである。これは、権力の乱用を防ぎ、説明責任を確保するための憲法上の制度である。副大統領サラ・ドゥテルテ氏が弾劾条項の却下を求めたことは、過去にも見られた政治的駆け引きの一環と解釈できる。特に、機密資金の使途を巡る会計検査院（COA）の指摘は、公的資金の透明性と適正な執行に対する国民の関心の高まりを反映しており、過去の類似事例でもしばしば議論の的となってきた。
原文ソース
GMA News Philippines