Luistro telling Duterte to use other platform ‘ridiculous’ — Sison

MANILA, Philippines — The suggestion from Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro that Vice President Sara Duterte can use other platforms to respond to evidence that the prosecution has presented but later withdrew is ridiculous and unbelievable, lead counsel for the respondent Sheila Sison said on Tuesday.

During the resumption of Duterte’s trial, Sison again called out Luistro after the latter responded to questions about whether it would be fair for the defense if they were not allowed to counter evidence simply because the prosecution withdrew Articles I, III, and IV.

Luistro, the lead public prosecutor, then said the defense can find another platform to use if its intention is to refute the evidence presented.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: From Donki to Nike: Analyst says VP had ‘unusual’ purchases in 2025 

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“The defense was likewise given their opportunity to participate by way of their lengthy, extensive, engaging cross-examination […] And if the desire of the defense is to be able to share all the pieces of evidence that they have, there are a lot of platforms which they can, may consider, Your Honor if the intention only is to share this publicly,” Luistro said.

“To be frank, it sounds ridiculous to even suggest to the respondent that ‘hey, after 38 days, present namin ang lahat ng mga tao na sa tingin namin ay kayang magbigay ng damage sa iyong reputasyon, at kayang mag-identify ng dokumento na gusto naming marinig ng taumbayan’,” Sison replied thereafter.

(To be frank, it sounds ridiculous to even suggest to the respondent that ‘hey, after 38 days, we presented to the people everything that we think can damage your reputation, and we have identified documents that we want the people to hear.’)

READ: Unexplained wealth of VP may hit P1.5 billion, says analyst 

Article continues after this advertisement

“‘Pero ang gagawin namin sa bandang huli ay iwi-withdraw namin lahat ito, at sasabihin na lamang namin na ito ay para sa taumbayan, para may kaunti namang kabilisan ang trial na ito.  But nonetheless, may iba ka namang platform, respondent.’  That is the messaging that the prosecution seems to want to impart before the public and before this honorable court; it is unbelievable,” she added.

(‘But what we will do now at the end is to withdraw all of these, and we will just say that this was for the people, and we will withdraw to expedite this trial.  But nonetheless, you have other platforms, respondent.’  That is the messaging that the prosecution seems to want to impart before the public and before this honorable court; it is unbelievable.)

Article continues after this advertisement

Sison then asked whether the prosecution wants Duterte to go to social media sites and answer the accusations there, when the evidence was laid down before the court.

If this is the case, the lead counsel for the respondent said it is a clear sign that something is wrong with the proceedings.

READ: Cayetano: Impeach drop is hitting a defense that can’t strike back

“Platform for the respondent?  Does the prosecution really want the respondent na punta lang ang respondent sa Facebook, and where else, matapos nilang sirain ang bise presidente sa harap ng publiko?  At ngayon ang sasabihin ay tutulungan ang taumbayan para mamadali ang proseso?” Sison asked.

(Platform for the respondent?  Does the prosecution really want the respondent to go to Facebook, and where else, after they destroyed the vice president before the public?  And now they will reason out that this is intended to shorten the process?)

“Sa tingin ko hindi natin kailangan ng higit pang patunay na something really, really wrong is going on here,” she noted.

(I don’t think we need any further proof that something really, really wrong is going on here.)

Later, Sison reiterated that the prosecution’s decision to drop Articles I, III, and IV is theirs and should not affect the defense’s strategy or intentions.

“But let us be clear, whatever is the decision of the prosecution on how to manage its case or how to secure its case, and whether it thinks that its case can survive on one article alone, and that they do not need to offer evidence on Articles I, the confidential funds, and Article IV, the grave threats, and Article III on bribery and corruption, that’s their call.  That’s their lookout,” she added.

Earlier, Sison already warned that there might be a mistrial if the impeachment court allows the prosecution to withdraw the three articles and effectively prevent Duterte from countering the evidence already presented.

At the start of Tuesday’s hearing, Luistro said that aside from Article III or the allegation that Duterte bribed Department of Education officials, the prosecution is foregoing Article I or claims of confidential fund misuse within the vice president’s office; and Article IV or her grave threats against ranking officials.

This means the prosecution will present only Article II, or unexplained wealth allegations, in its formal offer of evidence.

However, the issue with the prosecution’s decision is that Articles I and IV have already been presented — meaning, witnesses and documents have already been made public.

On Monday, the impeachment court wrapped up discussions on Article II as the defense finished their cross-examination of financial forensic analyst Alexander Cabrera — the prosecution’s final witness.

Cabrera has made several grave accusations in his report of Duterte’s financial transactions, like claims that the vice president failed to declare P817,874,867 in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

However, Cabrera said the P817.8 billion not declared in Duterte’s SALN was a conservative amount, because the vice president’s unexplained wealth could reach P1.5 billion if he includes P475 million in confidential funds and adopts less conservative assessments of questioned transactions.

Cabrera, the prosecution’s expert witness for the impeachment trial, said the additional amounts could include P100 million in questioned Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) transactions and P250 million involving Gencorp Industries Inc.

“Almost double … P1.5 billion. That will be unexplained wealth,” Cabrera said when asked how high the estimate could go without the analyst’s conservative approach.

Prior to that, Cabrera also said that Duterte had “unusual banking behavior” in 2025 which included a meal at Ginza Inakaya Tokyo in Japan worth P200,007.29 with a transaction date of March 19, 2025; two transactions on December 27, 2025 with the Nike store at a Davao City mall worth P93,750.00 and P205,392.00; and another Nike store in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, worth P256,882.50.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Cabrera did not mention Duterte’s other unusual banking activities, but Table 25 showed that she had gone shopping at two discount store chains in Japan. /mr