THE spokesman for Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team has denied that the answer ad-cautelam they submitted to the House Committee on Justice was a “non answer,” saying the panel disregarded the “fundamental points” the lawyers presented during the impeachment proceedings. The committee, headed by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, declared that the two impeachment complaints against Duterte were “sufficient in grounds,” paving the way for a hearing during the session break. In a television interview, Michael Wesley Poa cited the example of plunder, explaining that for plunder to happen, a public official must be able to amass, accumulate, acquire ill-gotten wealth through a series or combination of overt acts. Plunder was among the allegations raised against Duterte. “Given that our Vice President is a public official, where is the allegation that she was able to amass and accumulate? All that they said there, at least in our opinion, is a conclusion of law, or at least speculations or self-serving conjectures,” Poa said. He also cited the allegation that Duterte had amassed wealth as reflected in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN). “When you show the SALN, then you suddenly conclude that there is ill-gotten wealth because there is an increase in the SALN, to us that is again another conclusion of law. Those are just examples just to simplify the matter. But that is why in our answer, we pointed out that fundamental defect,” Poa said. He said the complaints omitted “certain facts,” and the accusers presented certain facts that are by itself are not criminal. “But when you have to deny certain things, one. They have to be material averments or allegations, which we feel they weren’t, and secondly, if there are actionable documents, actionable documents are like contracts, for example, where the vice president participated in a contract. There is nothing like that,” Poa said. Poa said the option to go to the Supreme Court to question the proceedings remains a possibility. “We will see if the committee violated our rights. We want to first raise our objections at the committee, that we oppose and we disagree, but if we are not heard there, then maybe that would be the appropriate time [to go to the Supreme Court],” he said.