From 4 to 1: Impeach court OKs reduced raps vs Sara Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday allowed the House prosecution panel to withdraw three of the four articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, leaving allegations of unexplained wealth and nondisclosure of assets as the sole remaining basis for the trial.

Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero approved the withdrawal of Articles 1, 3 and 4 after lead prosecutor, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro announced the panel’s decision, following 38 days of trial.

“The court accepts and confirms the prosecution’s manifestation … Articles 1, 3 and 4 from this point forward are hereby withdrawn,” Escudero said.

Article continues after this advertisement

The withdrawn articles covered alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery, and an assassination plot, grave threats and inciting to sedition. Article 2 accuses Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth, failing to disclose assets in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, and failing to divest business interests.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Luistro said the prosecution believed its evidence on Article 2 was “substantial and compelling” to warrant Duterte’s removal for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

“In the prosecution’s assessment, concentrating on this article is the most judicious course, consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation,” she said.

The move came a day after forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera, the prosecution’s final witness, completed his testimony on the financial allegations. Cabrera told the court that Duterte’s unexplained wealth could reach P1.5 billion.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison warned that allowing the prosecution to withdraw the charges could deny Duterte the opportunity to rebut evidence already presented publicly, undermining due process and creating the conditions for a mistrial.

Article continues after this advertisement

“If the withdrawal is intended to shorten the proceedings … so the court may immediately proceed to judgment, then we believe that the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial,” Sison said.

She argued that prosecutors could not unilaterally determine which accusations the defense would be allowed to answer after witnesses had testified and evidence had been presented before the Senate.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested,” she said.

Sison said the defense would proceed with its presentation of evidence regardless of the prosecution’s decision.

“We respect the decision of the prosecution. However, whether this will affect how the defense plans to proceed with its presentation of evidence is something that we must make clear: It will not,” she said.

Allowing prosecutors to dictate the scope of the defense’s case would give them an impermissible power to control not only their own presentation but also the respondent’s, she added.

Sison said the public had already been exposed to the accusations through the prosecution’s witnesses and evidence, putting Duterte at risk of losing the opportunity to contradict them.

“The prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard, while the respondent would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted,” she said.

No vote on withdrawal

Escudero imposed different conditions on the withdrawn articles. Articles 1 and 4, for which the evidentiary presentation had been completed, were withdrawn with prejudice, barring their revival or refiling against Duterte during the 20th Congress. Article 3, withdrawn before evidence was presented, was withdrawn without prejudice but cannot be revived in the current trial.

No vote or verdict will be rendered on the three articles, and Duterte will no longer be required to present an evidentiary defense against them, Escudero said.

Evidence related to the withdrawn charges will remain in Senate custody, subject to access controls, privacy safeguards and watermarking protocols.

Dispute over public discussion

Escudero lifted the sub judice restrictions under Rule 18 for the three withdrawn articles, allowing the parties, including Duterte, to discuss the allegations publicly. The restrictions will remain in force for Article 2, which is still pending.

Escudero said Duterte could explain her side and defend her reputation outside the courtroom, having been relieved of the need to present evidence against the withdrawn charges during the trial.

The ruling does not authorize unrestricted disclosure of evidence or override confidentiality obligations, protective orders, legal privileges, statutory secrecy requirements or witness-protection measures.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano questioned the decision to lift the restrictions while the court was still considering whether to reconsider the ruling.

“I don’t understand why there has to be that gap of time that in the meantime, it’s a free for all,” Cayetano said, arguing that maintaining the status quo would be more consistent if the parties were being given time to state their positions.

Escudero said he did not want Duterte to be prevented from answering allegations both inside and outside the courtroom.

“The last thing I want for anyone to say when they leave this courtroom is, ‘They were not allowed to answer inside the court, they were not even allowed to answer outside,’” he said.

Senator-judge Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan moved to reconsider the lifting of the restrictions. Escudero took the motion under advisement, saying the court would act after the defense clarified Duterte’s position, possibly within the week.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa also warned that a regional trial court’s gag order in a separate grave-threats case could prevent Duterte’s camp from publicly discussing allegations covered by Article 4.

Escudero said the court could consider applying different restrictions to individual articles rather than treating all three alike.

“It does not have to be one for all, all for nothing,” he said.

Alan: Not fair

Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano likened the prosecution’s withdrawal of the charges to a fistfight in which one party is hit but then told not to hit back.

“It’s like a fistfight. You’ve already punched the defense, and then you tell them, ‘To save time, don’t hit back,” he said in Filipino.

Cayetano questioned the prosecution’s argument that dropping the articles would save time and government resources, saying it could have focused on the unexplained wealth allegations from the outset.

He also asked how the defense could meaningfully rebut the withdrawn charges through press conferences or Facebook livestreams when it could not compel witnesses to participate.

Impeachment, he said, was both a legal and political process with consequences for the reputation of the official facing removal. The Senate should prioritize fairness and due process over a rushed conclusion, particularly because the Constitution sets no deadline for completing the trial.

He also cited the Senate’s legislative workload, including deliberations on the proposed 2027 national budget, and concerns over the looming super El Niño, unfinished flood control projects and the economy.

Prosecutor’s objection

The proceedings also featured a dispute between Luistro and Sison over the defense counsel’s repeated use of the word “persecution.”

Sison used the term while referring to the scheduled resumption of hearings on Nov. 9. Luistro later asked that the word be stricken from the record, saying it was unfair to volunteer lawyers who had set aside their private practices to assist the prosecution.

Luistro also accused the defense of disregarding courtroom decorum and courtesy.

Sison maintained that the term appeared in Duterte’s answer to the impeachment complaint, which described the proceedings as “modern-day persecution.”

Escudero denied the prosecution’s motion, ruling that the word reflected the respondent’s view of the complaint and was not, by itself, an improper attack on the prosecution.

Trial resumes Nov. 9

Escudero announced that the defense would begin presenting its evidence on Nov. 9, with 25 trial days allotted for its presentation.

Hearings are scheduled for Nov. 9 to 13, Nov. 19 and 20, and Nov. 23. Sessions on Nov. 10, 12, 13, 19 and 20 will run from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., while the Nov. 23 hearing will end at 2 p.m. The Nov. 9 session will be suspended for Senate plenary at 3 p.m. and resume afterward.

There will be no hearing on Nov. 30, a holiday commemorating Bonifacio Day.

Escudero said the court was about 20 trial days ahead of schedule but would lose eight days in November because of the three-week recess, budget hearings, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit on Nov. 16 to 18 and holidays.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The next phase of the trial will focus on whether Duterte can rebut the remaining financial allegations while the court addresses the defense’s concerns over its right to answer accusations already presented publicly. —With reports from Keith Clores, Gabriel Pabico Lalu, Maila Ager, and Isabelle Pechay