Misused funds deny public food, service – ex-UP professor

Although the bid to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte does not feed Filipinos, the misuse of government funds-which she is being accused of, among other allegations, denies the public the services it needs, a University of the Philippines (UP) professor emerita said. — Photo from Inday Sara Duterte/Facebook

MANILA, Philippines — Although the bid to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte does not feed Filipinos, the misuse of government funds, which is among the allegations against her, denies the public food and the services it needs, a University of the Philippines (UP) professor emerita said.

This was in response to Sen. Christopher “Bong” Go, who seconded the motion to dismiss the complaint against Duterte on Tuesday, saying that impeachment “couldn’t be eaten” and that there were more pressing issues, such as healthcare and livelihood, that needed to be addressed more.

“Hindi siya makakain, yung impeachment na yan, pero na-deprive ka sa pagkain or ibang public services kasi yung pera natin, ng taumbayan ay allegedly winaldas,” UP National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) professor emerita Fe Mendoza told INQUIRER.net in an interview on Wednesday.

(It can’t be eaten, that impeachment we’re talking about, but you’re deprived of food or other public services because our funds, the people’s funds, were allegedly wasted.)

“Ito ay pera ng taumbayan na hindi dapat binabalewala. Ito ay pera ng taumbayan na para sa mga public services na ang mga ordinaryong citizens ay maaaring ma-avail kung maayos ang paggasta,” she added.

(This is the money of the people that should never be ignored. This is the money of the people that should be for public services that ordinary citizens can avail if spending were done right.)

‘More vigilance’

In the impeachment case filed against her, Duterte is accused of culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes, particularly her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds.

Earlier on Tuesday, Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa moved to dismiss the complaint against Duterte, with Go seconding the motion but also introducing the idea of remanding the articles of the impeachment back to the House.

After hours of debate, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano moved to amend Dela Rosa’s motion so that the Senate would return the complaint to the House so that the lower chamber could:

• Certify that it did not violate Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which limits impeachment proceedings to only once a year
• Communicate that the 20th Congress will still pursue the impeachment complaint against Duterte

Senator-judges voted 18-5 to return the articles of impeachment to the House, effectively “rendering moot” their presentation scheduled on Wednesday and sparking backlash from groups calling to hold Duterte accountable.

READ: Bayan tells ‘spineless’ Senate: We’ll protest outside tomorrow

“Yung mga legislators, only within the chambers ang sanction. Walang other institutional body na pupwedeng mag-sanction sa kanila,” Mendoza said. “Doon sa ginawa nila dito sa impeachment, ang publiko siguro ay lalo maging vigilant.”

(Legislators are only sanctioned within their chambers. No other institutional body can sanction them. With what they did with impeachment, the public should be even more vigilant.)

“Hindi nila i-relate yung impeachment na hindi siya nakakain kung hindi isang importanteng mechanism para tayo ay malaman natin ang katotohanan at yung mga officials na dapat ay managot doon sa mga alleged cases or charges against them,” she further stressed.

(They shouldn’t relate impeachment to something that can’t be eaten, but rather as an important mechanism so that we can know the truth and our officials can be held accountable for alleged cases or charges against them.)

‘Complicated’

Despite the Senate sending the articles of impeachment back to the House, the impeachment court still sent a writ of summons to Vice President Duterte, requiring her to answer the complaint against her within the next 10 days.

Duterte’s office received the summons on Wednesday morning.

READ: Sara Duterte’s office receives impeachment court summons

Mendoza said the impeachment court could have just started the trial.

“Ang dami nilang parang binigay na komplikasyon sa napakakomplikado nang sitwasyon,” she said. “Ang gulo. Bakit mo ire-return yung isang complaint kung magsu-summon ka na?”

(It seems they added more complications to an already complicated situation… It’s chaotic. Why will you return a complaint when you’ll also be sending out summons anyway?)

The UP professor emerita further questioned why the remanding of the articles of impeachment sought to verify whether the complaint violated the one-year ban.

“Hindi naman apat yung impeachment cases na hinain sa Senado. Isa lang. Ano’ng navi-violate doon?” the UP professor said.

(There weren’t four impeachment cases forwarded to the Senate. Only one. What does that violate?)

“Ang gusto pang susog ni Senator Peter Cayetano na sila ang mag-certify na they’re not violating the Constitution. Bakit mo idi-dribble yung bola sa House na tapos na yung trabaho?” she added.

(The amendment Senator Peter Cayetano is further pushing is to certify that they’re not violating the Constitution. Why are you dribbling the ball toward the House when they’ve already done their job?)