House Trial Spokesperson and Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said Vice President Sara Duterte’s answer to the Articles of Impeachment failed to directly address the allegations against her, arguing instead that the defense relied on procedural and constitutional objections.

During the Saturday News Forum on June 27, Adiong said the prosecution observed that the defense did not present specific counter-evidence to challenge the impeachment charges ahead of the scheduled Senate trial on July 6.

“It only confirms our initial observation that the defense could not provide particular counter-evidence and argument to challenge even to contest the allegations contained under the articles of impeachment,” Adiong said.

He added that the defense has repeatedly raised constitutional and procedural issues, which he described as “way, way past” the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

“That from the very start they’ve been harping about procedural objections, constitutional objections which all of us know is already way, way past over that stage,” he said.

He stressed that the prosecution expects the defense to submit specific evidence and arguments in its pre-trial brief to directly contest the allegations.

“It only boils to the issue that the defense again we expect that in the pre-trial brief they can actually provide, particular specific evidence counter evidence to at least challenge ’yung mga accusations. But then again the summation of the case that they would like to brought forth as indicated by that statement only validates our earlier observation na kulang talaga nag knailang pwedeng mai-offer sa Korte,“ the lawmaker said. “This is also completely opposite of what we’ve heard during the press conference that they conducted previously, that they are ready to face and answer these allegations at the proper venue.“

Adiong also said Duterte’s 51-page answer to the Articles of Impeachment appeared to be a “rehash,” merely reiterating earlier arguments questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment process and its initiation in the House of Representatives.

He said, “The answer they have provided to the court is just the same rehash claim that everything is void because from the very beginning they questioned the Constitution and the process by which the impeachment was initiated and brought to the Senate.“

On Duterte's alleged assassination plot vs the President, First Lady, Romualdez

Adiong also addressed Duterte’s claim that alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez were covered by “freedom of expression.“

He rejected this argument, saying the alleged statements should be assessed based on their effect and seriousness, not just intent.

“Nakita natin na direct threat yun sa presidente its not actually her utterances that should be focus its the effect of the utterances on the person that is being threatened ‘yung sinabi niya,” Adiong said.

“I think for someone who has that enjoys a certain privilege, influence and following. We should also take that as a consideration na hindi pupwedeng hindi bigyan ng seriousness itong threat... Siya mismo ang nagsabi no joke, it's for the courts for appreciation that’s why we've forwarded this to the Senate. So that the Senate acting as a Senate court can actually and finally settle whether our claim and our allegations that this is indeed constitute, betrayal of public trust, constitute high crimes, would the Senate be able to at least appraise with the evidence that we will president,“ he added.

Earlier, Duterte's reply to the impeachment complaint, the Vice President's camp argued that the proceedings were “void” due to alleged “evident bad faith and manifest partiality,” and maintained that her statements were protected speech.

“Freedom of expression is accorded with primacy and high esteem in our jurisction as it is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional systems. It applies not only to those who are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb,” the defense said.

The defense also denied claims that Duterte had contracted an assassin to carry out threats against the President, First Lady, and then-House Speaker.

“No proof was shown that the respondent actually contracted an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House,” the reply stated.

Adiong maintained that the prosecution is “confident it has evidence to present before the Senate,“ and said it is now up to the defense to convince the impeachment court that the alleged statements fall under freedom of expression and should not carry consequences for making threats against others.

He added that public officials must be held to a higher standard given their influence and following.

”As a public official it is also civic duty to involve ourselves in value formation para tayo ay pamarisan ng mga kabataan, ng bawat Pilipino, maganda dapat ang asal na pinapakita natin sa kanila,” Adiong said.

Adiong also argued that such statements, if proven, could constitute betrayal of public trust and should not be normalized.