Sara Duterte was told prosecutors might drop 3 impeachment charges

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte and her defense team had an inkling that House prosecutors would reduce the impeachment case against her to a single charge, as rumors of the move had already been abound, two of her defense lawyers said. 

In separate interviews, defense spokesperson Michael Poa and deputy spokesperson Justin Nicol Gular said Duterte was told of the possible withdrawal before prosecutors formally made a motion for it on Tuesday, October 13. At the time the vice president was briefed, she had wanted to think things over before acting.  

"Actually, when I heard the rumors, I already updated her," Poa said on ANC's "Headstart" on Thursday, October 15. "When I spoke to her right after, all she said to me was, 'You know what, let's sleep on this. Let's think about things first.'"

"She wasn't surprised because, as we said, she had been informed beforehand of the possibility," Gular said in Filipino in an interview with One PH on Thursday.

The prosecution on Tuesday withdrew Article I on the alleged misuse of confidential funds, Article III on alleged bribery at the Department of Education and Article IV on alleged grave threats.

Only Article II, on unexplained wealth, remains.

The Senate impeachment court accepted the withdrawal and lifted the sub judice rule on the three dropped charges, allowing both sides to discuss them in public. 

Poa said he would meet Duterte in the coming days because the defense must file a manifestation stating her position on the ruling.

Days before the hearing, the defense had been picking up "chismis" or gossip, that prosecutors might drop three articles, Gular said.  

But as the defense team prepared for October 13, formally, only one withdrawal was certain, Gular said, as prosecutors had already filed a manifestation to drop the bribery charge. 

"We receive a lot of information during the course of this trial. But you never know if it will happen or turn out to be true," Gular said.

Why the defense objects

Poa said the defense's first reaction to the lifting of the sub judice rule was that it creates "complications."

The grave threats charge is one article that Duterte's lawyers cannot yet speak about in public, as a regional trial court hearing Duterte's separate criminal case has issued a gag order, Poa said.

The defense spokesperson also lamented the limitations that would come with defending allegations at a press conference and not in court.

Some witnesses the defense wanted to subpoena "are not necessarily aligned with us," Poa said, and could not be summoned to a press conference.

He would not speculate on whether the court will still let the defense call witnesses on the dropped charges. The burden is on the defense to show they are relevant, he said, and prosecutors have the right to object.

"We also don't want to be seen as wasting the time of the court. But again, fairness is something we've always asked for," Poa said.

'Court still trying to balance' issues, Poa acknowledges

Asked whether the court has remained fair, Poa said, "I would like to say yes."  

"I don't want to say the court is unfair because the court is still trying to balance the situation, as I've seen the presiding officer do," he said.

"Without casting aspersions on the prosecution, perhaps they had a strategy that they had to tweak along the way," Poa said.

The defense will begin presenting its evidence on November 9. The trial is on hold while the Senate takes up the proposed 2027 national budget.

Asked if the defense would likely finish before Christmas, Poa said: "I don't want to box us in to a schedule. It's not about delaying or prolonging the proceedings or shortening the proceedings."

The withdrawal forced the defense to "restrategize," he said, and it may drop witnesses or call others it had held in reserve.

"I think all of us would want to finish, personally, before Christmas, but we can't box the defense in," Poa said.

But will the vice president take the stand? Poa said: "If there's a trigger point, meaning aspects of the case that we feel may only be explained by the vice president herself or attorney Mans Carpio himself, we will have to advise them," he said.

"But at the end of the day, it will be their decision if they want to take the stand or not," he added. 

Article II accuses Duterte of having unlawful business interests and amassing wealth she did not declare in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.