The Senate impeachment court approved on Tuesday, Oct. 13, the House prosecutors’ withdrawal of three of four articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, keeping only the charge of unexplained and undeclared wealth against her for trial.
Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero said the court “accepts and confirms” the prosecution’s manifestation to drop Article I (misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds), Article III (bribery and corruption within the Department of Education), and Article IV (assassination plot, grave threats, and inciting sedition against the government) in the trial.
“Having elected to withdraw the articles after resting its case, the prosecution must therefore accept the legal consequences of that withdrawal,” Escudero said, reading from his extended ruling.
Other rulings
He also announced other key rulings by the court:
• Articles I and IV “may not be refiled, reprosecuted, or transmitted anew against the same respondent during the same term and in this 20th Congress.”
• Article III, which the prosecution has not yet presented to the court, cannot be revived in this trial.
• The three articles shall not be submitted for a vote or verdict by the court anymore.
• Duterte need not present evidence in defense of the three withdrawn articles.
• The sub judice rule shall no longer cover the withdrawn articles. Section 18 of the impeachment rules had prohibited all parties from making public statements about the ongoing case.
Escudero made the rulings as the impeachment court called a recess and will return on Nov. 9, a day before Congress returns from its break that began on Oct. 10.
On Day 39 of the impeachment trial on Tuesday, lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro announced that they would keep only Article III in the trial, as the prosecution rested its case.
“Today the prosecution would like to manifest that it will no longer pursue three [of the four articles of impeachment]. It will stand on one, and that is Article II on unexplained wealth,” Luistro said.
“Why is one article enough? The prosecution believes it has presented sufficient evidence for Article II to stand on its own,” she said.
Article II focuses on Duterte’s unexplained wealth, failure to truthfully disclose assets in her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs), and her failure to divest from private business interests.
Prosecution rests case
House prosecutors concluded the day before their presentation of evidence against Duterte on Article II, calling 11 witnesses, including lawyer-accountant Alexander Cabrera, who testified on a financial forensic analysis report he prepared based on the Vice President’s financial records.
Cabrera said Duterte’s unexplained wealth could reach as high as ₱1.5 billion if he had not given a nonconservative accounting of her undeclared assets and income culled from subpoenaed financial and bank records.
“All of us here believe that the evidence is substantial and compelling, and warrants the respondent’s removal from office for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,” Luistro told the court.
She reminded prosecutors in the 2012 impeachment trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was convicted, “withdrawn certain articles and proceeded only on the remaining ones.”
“This manifestation is made in that same spirit to exercise the prosecution’s judgment on which charges to pursue, as well as to safeguard the interest of the nation against betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution,” Luistro said.
Defense objection
Duterte’s lead counsel Sheila Sison said the prosecution’s move to withdraw three of four articles of impeachment, two of which it has presented in the last 38 days and spent government resources, will see it “retain the benefit of evidence heard while respondent would be at risk of being denied the benefit to contradict them.”
“This is not fair and not in keeping with due process,” Sison said, noting that the defense should have been given “meaningful opportunity to answer accusations advanced against her.”
The defense lawyer slammed what seemed to be conferring the prosecution “extraordinary and impermissible power to control not only the presentation of its own case but the scope and substance of the defense’s case.”
“If the withdrawal [of the cases] is intended to shorten proceedings of this case or presentation of the defense’s evidence so the court could immediately render a decision, we believe the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristic of a mistrial, a proceeding in which the fundamental balance between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised on record,” Sison said.
Responding to her statements, Luistro said the prosecution did not intend “to cause unfairness or injustice” to Duterte, and made a “careful study” in withdrawing the three articles of impeachment.
Public impatience
This, she said, included concern about public impatience with the case since the allegations against Duterte were the same in the first impeachment case against her in 2024.
The prosecution team was also concerned about Congress’ “equally important” duty of legislation, she said.
But Luistro said the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. If it desires to present evidence to the public, “there are a lot of platforms that they can consider,” Luistro said.
This angered Sison, who said: “It sounds ridiculous to even suggest to the respondent” after the prosecution presented its evidence and later withdrew it.
“It is unbelievable and to be honest, it’s unacceptable…I think there is no need to show proof that something really, really wrong is going on here,” she added.
Sison pointed out that it was the prosecution’s “call and lookout” in withdrawing the three articles. “So should the withdrawal of the three articles weaken the prosecution’s case, that’s for them to bear; that’s their burden. That’s not the defense’s burden, and the defense will proceed as it deems fit,” she said.
At one point, Sison said she would go as far as to say that “the withdrawal of the three articles should already be one of the reasons why the articles of impeachment should be dismissed.”
She said the defense “strongly objects” to the court’s expanded ruling that sees it “abandoning” Section 18 on the rule of sub judice “in the middle of the trial” and “even before the defense presents its evidence.”
This, Sison said, “allows unregulated or unbridled exercise of statements that can be made before the public and before platforms.” She added: “We now have what seems to be a free-for-all type of accusing the respondent anywhere and everywhere.”
Escudero said this could have been avoided had the prosecution and defense agreed to Senator-judge Bam Aquino’s suggestion that the two panels alternately present their evidence.
“All we’re saying is why it seems now that the defense is limited to what the respondent can do in terms of her presentation of her case in chief,” Sison said.
Sub judice ruling
Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan moved for the reconsideration of the lifting of the sub judice ruling given the defense felt strongly about it.
Defense lawyer Michael Poa told the court that they face difficulties in the lifting of the sub judice ruling because, for one, the defense cannot speak publicly about the article on grave threats given the gag order on them by a regional trial court.
Poa said they will confer with Duterte as the impeachment court has advised.
With the prosecution resting its case, the impeachment court gave it 26 calendar days from Tuesday to prepare and submit its presentation of evidence-in-chief by Nov. 9. The defense, meanwhile, has until Nov. 9 to submit its list of witnesses for Article II.
The court set the next trial dates for Nov. 9, 10, 12–13, 19–20, and 23. The trial dates in December will be decided later. CS
Read more: Unexplained wealth of Duterte, husband could reach ₱1.5B, says financial expert
