MANILA — As the impeachment process against Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio advances, her defense counsel on Wednesday sharply criticized the evidence presented before the House Committee on Justice, describing it as weak, out of context, and insufficient to establish probable cause.
Atty. Paul Lawrence Lim, counsel for Duterte-Carpio in a complaint before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), said materials shown during the committee’s hearing exposed what he called the fragility of allegations linking the Vice President to inciting to sedition and grave threats.
“The presentation… publicly reveals the paucity of the charges against her. Evidence is curated, even spliced. Context is ignored. Opinion is substituted for facts. Guesswork is presented as investigation results,” Lim said in a statement sent to Panay News.
He stressed that such evidence cannot support a finding of probable cause or a prima facie case that could lead to conviction.
Lim also disputed attempts to connect Duterte-Carpio to alleged threats against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and his family, calling the supposed link baseless.
“The attempt to create a causal link… demands a gigantic leap in logic and abandonment of basic evidentiary principles,” Lim said, adding that the alleged connection was being framed as under investigation while implying guilt without proof.
He further described the House proceedings as a “fishing expedition” aimed at lending substance to what he called defective impeachment complaints.
“With the committee hearings finished, the issue of the alleged commission of crimes will be addressed at the proper fora, where evidence is expected to support judgment, and the rule of law is expected to be respected,” he said.
The House Committee on Justice earlier found probable cause in the impeachment complaints against Duterte-Carpio following its hearings on April 29, paving the way for the process to proceed to the plenary.
Meanwhile, Duterte-Carpio’s defense team separately questioned the committee’s finding, arguing that the proceedings went beyond constitutional limits and relied on questionable evidence.
In a statement, the defense said the outcome “was not unexpected, given the direction the proceedings had taken,” but maintained that the process deviated from constitutional standards.
“We respectfully maintain that the proceedings before the Committee departed from the constitutional design. Instead of confining itself to the verified complaints and their attachments, the process expanded into matters that properly belong to a full trial,” the defense team said.
The camp reiterated that it would address the allegations in the appropriate forum, underscoring the need to uphold due process and the rule of law./PN
