IGINIIT ni House committee on justice chair Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro ng Batangas noong Martes na kikilos ang komite nang may ganap na independence at impartiality sa paghawak ng mga reklamong impeachment.

Ayon kay Luistro, ang panel ay ginagabayan ng ebidensiya at tungkuling konstitusyonal—hindi ng mga pahayag sa publiko o political pressure.

“I am expecting the entire Justice Committee to act with utmost independence and impartiality,” sinabi ni Luistro, isang abogado, sa isang ambush interview.

“The Members of the House are expected to evaluate, assess and hear the impeachment complaint with utmost independence and impartiality,” diin ni Luistro.

Binanggit ni Luistro na ang gawain ng komite ay nakabatay sa ebidensiya at proseso, na nagsisimula sa pagtukoy kung sapat sa form at substance ang reklamo bago magsagawa ng anumang pagdinig sa merito.

“Ito palagi kong sinasabi during interviews because I want to walk through the Filipino people about this process,” aniya.

Aniya, tiwala din siyang kayang dinggin ng justice committee ang higit sa isang impeachment case kung kinakailangan sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon, kabilang ang mga kaso laban sa iba’t ibang impeachable officials.

“In the event that this impeachment complaint by the Makabayan group is indeed filed and referred to the Justice Committee, we have no other option but to receive the same and evaluate the same and hear the impeachment complaint,” pahayag ni Luistro.

“The reason is this is a constitutional mandate that we really have to face. It does not depend on our desire, it does not depend on our availability, it does not depend on our preference. It is a mandate that we really have to address,” dagdag niya.

Sinabi niyang handang-handa ang komite para rito.

“Let me express my strongest faith and confidence to the 38 members of the Justice Committee. They have the necessary skills, knowledge, and background to take care of these two impeachment complaints,” saad ni Luistro.

“So, I am confident that we can hear both impeachment complaints using proper strategies. Under the rules, yes,” sinabi pa niya.

Tungkol sa one‑year prohibition rule, kinilala ni Luistro na may dalawang magkaibang legal na interpretasyon kung kailan magsisimula ang ban, at hindi pa ito napagpapasyahan nang may pinal na ruling.

“I have two thoughts,” aniya. “Considering the decision of the Supreme Court, ang naging reckoning period nila is the date of filing.”

Gayunman, binanggit niya na sa naunang Francisco ruling, “what actually bars the subsequent complaints is the referral to the Justice Committee.”

“So, two thoughts that we must consider,” dagdag pa niya, sabay banggit na ang Supreme Court ruling ay may nakabinbing motion for reconsideration.

Nilinaw din ni Luistro ang mga usapin ng due process kaugnay ng partisipasyon ng respondent, at sinabing hindi kailangan ang pagdalo nito sa unang yugto.

“Since the initial step of this process will be the determination of sufficiency in form and substance, ito po proceeding participated by committee members only,” paliwanag ni Luistro. “Wala pa po tayong iimbitahan na neither complainant nor witness, nor the respondent.”

Aniya, ang pagdalo sa hearing proper ay karapatang maaaring i-waive.

“It is actually his prerogative whether to come or not to come,” sinabi ni Luistro. “If he will choose not to come, that will be interpreted as a waiver of his right to be present during the hearing.”

Inulit ni Luistro na hindi uusad ang komite sa susunod na hakbang kung hindi papasa ang reklamo sa required standards.

“We are not supposed to proceed to the succeeding step kung hindi makakapasa doon sa standard ng sufficiency in form and sufficiency in substance,” aniya.

Tungkol sa timeline, sinabi niyang ito ay nakadepende sa ebidensiya at pleadings na ihahain.

“It’s hard to say that because we have yet to see the evidence,” ani Luistro. “We will be able to assess kung gaano katagal ang itatagal nito perhaps after we have seen all the evidence and after we’ve seen all the responsive pleadings.”