Legarda denies seeking asylum to evade charges

SEN. Loren Legarda has denied reports that her trip abroad was intended to pave the way for her to seek political asylum and avoid possible charges she may face in the Philippines.

In a statement released late Tuesday, Legarda dismissed the reports as unfounded, saying her travel was not connected to any plan to leave the country permanently or evade legal proceedings.

“I have served our country with utmost dedication and integrity for more than three decades. I will not allow baseless accusations to trample on my unblemished record of public service. I have filed a medical leave with the Senate, in accordance with Senate rules. Neither I nor anyone else deserves to be subjected to unfounded accusations over the exercise of one’s legal rights. I have committed absolutely no wrongdoings,” she said.

Her statement did not say what medical treatment she was seeking abroad.

The senator’s denial came amid speculation surrounding her absence from the country and reports suggesting that her overseas trip could be linked to possible legal action against her.

Legarda has maintained that she has no intention of seeking asylum and that her travel was for legitimate personal and official reasons.

Legarda and her son, Rep. Leandro Leviste, are under investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman for graft and plunder over allegations that they conspired through legislative and regulatory actions to secure exclusive contracts for over P10 billion worth of undelivered solar energy projects.

She had earlier taken a medical leave from the Senate covering Aug. 3 to 5, but subsequently extended it twice.

The senator’s denial comes as the Senate remains preoccupied with major legislative and national issues, including the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, meanwhile, has denied allegations that he is courting Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and other minority senators, including the Villar siblings and Legarda, to vote against Vice President Duterte in the ongoing impeachment trial.

Impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol said Wednesday that he asked Escudero about the report, which the presiding officer dismissed with laughter, saying there was no such move on his part.

Tongol said Escudero is preoccupied with studying the prosecution’s evidence, witness testimonies and documents, as well as preparing rulings arising from changes in the trial schedule.

“He is busy, and his time is taken up by reading and studying the case,” Tongol said in a Zoom interview on Aug. 19.

He also rejected the suggestion that Escudero would have a practical reason to begin lobbying senators at this stage of the proceedings, noting that the prosecution has yet to complete its presentation on Article I.

Tongol said the trial still has the remaining articles of impeachment to tackle before the defense presents its case and the senator-judges eventually vote.

“It’s still too early,” he said, adding that the prosecution is only about halfway through its presentation on the first article.

Tongol also dismissed suggestions that the allegations could be part of an effort to discredit Escudero’s handling of the impeachment proceedings.

The allegations should not automatically be treated as facts, particularly in the absence of evidence, he said.

“In a court of law, whoever alleges has to prove,” Tongol said, invoking the presumption of innocence that applies to the respondent in an impeachment proceeding.

16-vote threshold remains

Tongol also said the impeachment court’s requirement of 16 votes to convict Duterte remains in force and should not be altered because of the repeated absences of some senator-judges.

He said Escudero’s ruling at the opening of the impeachment trial on July 6 established that two-thirds of the 23-member Senate, or 16 votes, are required for conviction.

That ruling, Tongol said, cannot simply be revisited during the trial unless it is challenged before the Supreme Court.

“As of the moment, nothing like that is happening, so that is already set in stone for the meantime,” he said.

Tongol warned that any attempt to lower the voting threshold in response to senator-judges who are absent could amount to changing the rules in the middle of the proceedings.

“That is a dangerous proposal because it will necessarily entail the impeachment court to change the rules of the game mid-trial,” he said.

He explained that the higher threshold was consistent with the constitutional design of impeachment, which requires a two-thirds vote because conviction results in the removal of an elected official and effectively overrides the mandate given by voters.

Tongol cited the Supreme Court’s discussion in Bayan v. Zamora on the constitutional framework surrounding impeachment, emphasizing that the framers deliberately made removal from office difficult.