6th District Representative Benny Abante accused the defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte of using stall tactics as her Senate impeachment trial entered its third month.
Abante, an endorser of the impeachment complaint, raised the accusation ahead of scheduled oral arguments concerning the required number of senator-judges needed to secure a conviction.
“Akala ko ba gusto nilang pabilisin? Eh bakit parang sila pa nagdi-delay?” Abante said during an online press briefing.
The lawmaker pointed to the defense’s strategy of elevated legal disputes to the Supreme Court as a key factor stalling the trial’s momentum.
“Ibig sabihin, they’re delaying the proceeding. Dapat malaman ng taong-bayan, sino ba ang nagdi-delay,” Abante said.
“Delaying tactic ang ginagawa ng defense lawyers,” added the lawmaker.
The conflict stems from the defense’s stance against reducing the 16-vote conviction threshold originally established by Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who presides over the trial court.
Duterte’s lawyers argue that constitutional rules mandate two-thirds concurrence from the complete 24-member Senate roster.
The debate over the required vote count has gained urgency due to the non-participation of select senator-judges and other attendance constraints. Additionally, Escudero’s voting threshold determination remains under challenge following a motion for reconsideration filed by Senator Erwin Tulfo.
Abante emphasized that procedural arguments over voting thresholds should not distract from evaluating the core allegations and allowing the defense to present its counter-evidence.
“Sino ba nakakaalam kung ma-convict siya o hindi? Hindi naman pinag-uusapan dito na all of a sudden ay guilty na ang Vice President. Meron siyang pagkakataon sagutin lahat ng mga allegations ito,” he said.
The Senate trial began on July 6. The prosecution is presenting evidence under Article II regarding allegations of unexplained wealth, having already concluded evidence presentation for Article I (misuse of confidential funds) and Article IV (grave threats and inciting statements). Article III, concerning bribery charges, remains to be tackled.