Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 5 hours ago
The congresswoman who endorsed two of the original four impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte disagrees with the claim that there is no "smoking gun" in the case against the latter.

In fact, Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima told the House Committee on Justice during its hearing Monday, March 2 that she found several.

READ MORE: https://mb.com.ph/2026/03/02/de-lima-on-vp-duterte-impeachment-case-smoking-guns-galore
Transcript
00:00As to the opinion of some people, that there are no smoking guns in this and other complaints, I beg
00:08to disagree, Madam Chair.
00:10The video containing the Vice President's threat to kill the President, the First Lady, and then House Speaker, as well
00:16as the media interview where she affirmed it, is a smoking gun.
00:21The numerous documents evidencing payments or the debts with fictitious names are smoking guns.
00:28Sabalia et al.'s complaint is replete with many other documentary evidence which are also smoking guns.
00:35And even assuming, without conceding, that the evidence in the articles are not or no longer smoking guns, we have
00:43them this time.
00:45We will produce them in the form of compelling testimonies and newly discovered material evidence.
00:50One more time with fillings, as the lyrics of a song go.
00:54I reiterate, this House has impeached Vice President Sarah Duterte before.
01:01The records are clear.
01:02This House already determined, at least once, that the allegations against her were serious enough to trigger the constitutional process.
01:12So I ask, respectfully but directly, what has changed?
01:17Have the allegations disappeared?
01:19Have the official reports and audit findings been withdrawn?
01:22Have the sworn testimonies before the previous House hearings been recanted?
01:28Or is the only material development the public, is the public declaration that the Vice President may seek the presidency?
01:36May ihalilin tulad ba ito sa isang supervening event sa law on obligations and contracts?
01:42Yung madalas ding tawagin sa batas na fortuitous event, na pangyayaring hindi inasahan, o kung inasahan man ay hindi naiwasan,
01:52that had already rendered the performance of an obligation impossible or extremely difficult?
01:58Pero sandali lang po.
02:00Hindi ordinaryong obligasyon at pansariling interes ang nakataya rito sa impeachment process.
02:06Nakasalalay rito ang sinumpaang tungkulin natin sa ating bayan at sa ating saligang batas.
02:13Kaya kung wala namang nagbago sa mga facts at sa batas, anong dahilan para magbago ang paninindigan?
02:21O mas malala pa, anong rason para tuluyang mawala ang paninindigan?
02:27If we found the allegations sufficient before by transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate,
02:34then consistency and principled conviction demand that we uphold what this House had firmly decided on before.
02:43Kaya kung wala namang ditang bago ang panasalala,
02:47then consistency and�니다czema rito sa batasen ang panginnong.
02:49Kaya kung wala namang pangin kampakata,
02:49na kobe n***a,
02:51na kobe n***a.
02:52Kaya kung wala namang katakaya rito sa pinakata again na kobe n***a.
02:53Kaya kung wala namang?
Comments

Recommended