‘Duterte impeachment articles dropped as defense seeks to stretch trial’

MANILA, Philippines — Two members of the prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial admitted Wednesday that they dropped three articles of impeachment because they believed the defense would only seek to delay the proceedings.

In a press briefing, Manila Rep. Joel Chua and Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said they decided to drop three of the four articles of impeachment because they believed the defense had no evidence or witnesses to present and would merely rely on delaying the trial.

“We have seen through their strategy; they will just lengthen this process because, to be honest, they have no evidence to present. That’s why we picked the strongest article, or the strongest as the people think, because while we say that all articles are strong, the people said this has more weight,” Chua said, referring to Article II.

Article continues after this advertisement

During Tuesday’s trial, lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro manifested before the Senate Impeachment Court that the prosecution was dropping Article I, which concerns the alleged misuse of confidential funds in Duterte’s offices; Article III, which involves claims that Duterte bribed Department of Education employees; and Article IV, which deals with her alleged grave threats against ranking officials.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The prosecution will present only Article II, which concerns allegations that Duterte had unexplained wealth not declared in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

READ: Prosec drops all but unexplained wealth charge vs Duterte

Tolosa pointed out that the defense panel’s reaction to the lifting of the sub judice rule on the dropped articles was also “telling.”

“When the presiding officer lifted the sub judice rule on the dropped articles for the respondent’s benefit, what did the defense say? They said they didn’t want to,” he said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Let’s make it simple. What does this mean? They want the court to stop them from talking because they don’t want to. Why? I’ll say this directly: They have no evidence. That is just mere posturing, so they will have an excuse.)

READ: Court lifts sub judice rule on dropped impeachment articles

Article continues after this advertisement

Asked where they learned of the alleged defense strategy, Chua and Tolosa said it had been obvious “from the start” because “they were not able to present anything.”

“If you remember, this issue with the confidential funds started as early as 2024, and we have been talking about it since then. Their only legal strategy or remedy has been to question the jurisdiction of the committee and the impeachment court. But they cannot present anything about its merits,” Chua explained.

“If they really have any evidence, they should have presented it first to the COA (Commission on Audit). The COA is only asking for one thing: receipts to prove that they really bought the medicines, but they can’t present anything. So, given that it has been two years and you still cannot show a single receipt, and you appealed a decision that has now reached finality, what more should we assume?” he added.

Tolosa agreed, saying that from Duterte’s answer to the articles of impeachment to the pretrial brief, the defense had merely “copied” the prosecution’s list of witnesses.

“From the answer, what explanation did they give regarding grave threats, confidential funds, and bribery? Nothing. It’s all general denials and technicalities. Let’s look at their pretrial brief. What evidence did they present? Who were the witnesses they listed to answer our allegations in the complaint? Again, none,” he added.

Tolosa also noted that the prosecution did not pursue its plan to call Duterte to the witness stand because the defense immediately objected, leading the panel to decide that it did not need to present the vice president.

“When we said that we’re considering calling the vice president as a witness to give the senator-judges the opportunity to hear from the vice president herself, how did they respond to these important allegations? What did they say? They were already objecting to it even if there is no formal motion yet,” he said.

“And we heard several times the defense hinting that they would prefer to file a demurrer to evidence instead of presenting evidence after we conclude our presentation of evidence. So it is clear from the start, with respect to these articles that we dropped, they do not have any evidence to present,” he added.

During Tuesday’s trial, Duterte’s lead impeachment lawyer, Sheila Sison, warned Luistro and the prosecution that a mistrial could result if the impeachment court allowed the withdrawal of the three articles, effectively preventing Duterte from countering the evidence already presented.

Sison also questioned the prosecution panel’s sudden move, noting that the public and senator-judges had already heard the evidence presented, which involved the use of government funds and the participants’ efforts.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

According to Sison, there was no issue with withdrawing Article III because the prosecution had not presented any evidence for the accusation. However, she took issue with the withdrawal of Articles I and IV because documents had already been presented and made available to the public. /mcm