Gatchalian Rejects Signature Sharing With Cayetano

Acting Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian has shot down Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano’s proposal for an interim sharing of administrative responsibilities to prevent the still simmering challenge to his leadership from derailing the upcoming impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a letter dated June 7, Cayetano instructed his designated Senate secretary Jose Luis Montales to negotiate a “dual-signatory or joint-certification mechanism” with Senate Secretary Renato Bantug Jr.

This means Cayetano and Gatchalian would be jointly signing official documents.

The proposal comes as the Senate Impeachment Court, according to Cayetano, is scheduled to officially issue a notice of pre-trial today, June 9.

Under his proposed arrangement, critical administrative paperwork – including disbursement vouchers, checks, contracts and personnel actions – would bear his and Gatchalian’s signatures – ostensibly to ensure the Senate’s daily operations continue smoothly.

“Pending resolution (by the Supreme Court), it is imperative that the resulting legal and political dispute not be allowed to unnecessarily disrupt the operations of the Senate, impair the work of the Impeachment Court or diminish the institution’s ability to discharge its constitutional responsibilities,” Cayetano said in the letter.

At a press conference on Monday, June 8, Cayetano bared that Gatchalian rejected his proposal, also in a letter.

“A letter at around 12 (noon), tells Montales that ‘you are no longer Senate secretary’ and that attorney Bantug… basically, saying they are in charge,” Cayetano said in English and Filipino.

Gatchalian has yet to furnish the media copies of his response to Cayetano’s letter.

Maintaining his position that the June 3 reorganization was illegal, Cayetano accused Gatchalian’s bloc of usurpation of authority and taunting his leadership of the chamber as “Senate of Malacañang.”

House of Representatives Secretary General Cheloy Garafil, meanwhile, said there is no more need for the 11-member House prosecution team to make a formal reply to the “non-answer” Duterte submitted to the Senate Impeachment Court.

“Under the applicable rules, the allegations and defenses in the Answer are deemed controverted even without a Reply,” read a portion of the manifestation Garafil submitted to the Senate. Bantug received the manifestation on Monday.

The House prosecution team has accused the Vice President of again raising procedural, jurisdictional and constitutional objections instead of presenting factual narratives supporting her general denial of the allegations.

Copies of the manifestation were likewise furnished to the Office of the Vice President and the law firm Fortun Narvasa & Salazar.

“More fundamentally, the Answer raises no material factual issue that requires a responsive pleading. It does not meaningfully engage the factual allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, but instead concentrates on procedural, jurisdictional and constitutional objections directed against the continuation of the proceedings,” it added.

Lawmaker-prosecutors noted that Duterte’s answer failed to directly address any of the accusations against or explain why she should not be held liable for her offenses.

“This is evident across all four Articles, where respondent repeatedly asserts that she committed no impeachable offense. Beyond these general denials, the Answer offers no coherent factual narrative that directly refutes the charges set forth in the Articles of Impeachment,” it added.

Duterte faces four Articles of Impeachment covering her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, bribery, unexplained wealth and grave threats against President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta and former speaker Martin Romualdez.

For each Article of Impeachment, the prosecution observed that Duterte failed to present her version of events or provide any accounting of the transactions in question, including the alleged non-disclosure of cash on hand in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Considering the substantial lack of counter evidence in her answer, the House prosecutors said the Vice President appears to be seeking the dismissal of the case before the Senate impeachment court can even hear the evidence.

“In substance, therefore, the Answer does not function as a genuine response to the charges, but as an attempt to secure the outright dismissal of the impeachment case on threshold constitutional and procedural grounds,” the manifestation read.

The prosecution team, on the other hand, argued that no provision in the 1987 Constitution or the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials authorizes the outright dismissal of an impeachment case before a trial.

According to the prosecutors, the only recognized basis for terminating an impeachment proceeding is an acquittal rendered by the impeachment court after a full hearing of the evidence. — With Delon Porcalla