Complainants back ‘strategic move’ to drop 3 charges vs Sara Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — The complainants in the first and third articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday said the prosecution’s move to abandon most of the charges was a “strategic move” to speed up the trial and secure a faster outcome.

In a joint statement, the complainants argued that narrowing the impeachment trial against Duterte does not relieve her of liability or erase the claims, as the dropped charges remain under investigation through other channels.

“This is neither an abandonment of accountability nor an erasure of the allegations. Neither does it foreclose the pursuit of justice through other lawful processes,” the petitioners, joined by anti-corruption advocates, said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Prosecution: We saw VP Sara Duterte team’s ploy to delay trial

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“In fact, two of the dropped charges are already being pursued through other legal avenues,” they added, pointing to the plunder complaint tied to Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds filed with the Ombudsman and the threats against President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. being heard by a Quezon City court. “Justice does not begin and end with the impeachment proceedings.”

Duterte’s impeachment trial took a turn last week after prosecutors chose to narrow their case ahead of a nearly-month long Senate trial recess, choosing to abandon the impeachment articles concerning her alleged threats against Marcos, secret fund misuse and bribery.

Prosecutors only retained the claim that Duterte amassed unexplained wealth and failed to truthfully disclose her net worth in the trial. 

READ: Sara Duterte denies owning fast food chain franchise amid GenCorp link

Article continues after this advertisement

The development comes as Duterte’s lawyers prepare to counter months of testimony by prosecution witnesses, with lead defense counsel Sheila Sison arguing that the withdrawal would deprive Duterte of due process by denying her defense team the chance to publicly refute the accusations.

“We reject the drama of Sara’s lawyers that the dropping of the three articles constitutes a denial of due process,” the complainants said. “The House prosecution simply exercised its prerogative to narrow the case it intends to pursue, and the Senate impeachment court accepted that decision.”

Article continues after this advertisement

“The irony is that the defense’s repeated attempts to delay and prolong the trial are precisely why narrowing the case has become necessary,” they added.

The petitioners said that what frustrated Duterte’s defense team was not the “denial of due process, but the loss of an opportunity to further delay and prolong the trial.”

Among the petitioners to the first impeachment complaint were former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Quintos Deles, Sylvia Estrada Claudio, Josua Mata of the Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa, Eugene Louie Gonzalez, Ma. Yvonne C. Jereza, Leah Navarro, Flavie L. Villanueva, SVD, former Ifugao Rep. Teodoro “Teddy” Brawner Baguilat Jr., Robert Reyes of the Clergy for Good Governance, Rowena Amon, Matthew Silverio of the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines, Alicia Murphy and Randy Delos Santos.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The signatories to the third impeachment complaint included Pinky L. Tam, Geraldine Denoga, DC, Joel Saballa, Joselito Sarabia, CM, Lisa Ruedas, DC, Edilberto Baculi, CM, Leonrad Arevalo, Rogelio dela Rosario, Violeta Cecilio, DC, Maria Loreto Lopez and lawyer Dino S. de Leon, counsel for the third impeachment complaint. /mr