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

MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution panel withdrew three articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte after determining that her defense team allegedly planned to stall or delay her trial, two prosecutors said on Wednesday.

“We have seen through their strategy,” Manila Rep. Joel Chua told reporters. “They will just prolong the process because, to be honest, they have no evidence to present.”

In a surprise announcement on Tuesday, lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said that they have decided to drop three of the four articles of impeachment against Duterte—misuse of confidential funds (Article 1), death threats against President Marcos (Article 4) and bribery (Article 3).

Article continues after this advertisement

The prosecution rested its case with the unexplained wealth allegation (Article 2) as the sole charge against her.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

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

The Vice President’s alleged undeclared and unexplained wealth, which an expert witness estimated to be at least P817 million and possibly reach P1.5 billion, was the “strongest” case against her, Chua said in a press conference.

“We believe that we have very strong evidence for all the articles, but everyone is saying that this is the weightiest,” he said.

Until public loses interest

Chua told the Inquirer that the objective of the defense was to drag the trial to make the public lose track of the evidence presented by the prosecution and to make the public weary of the protracted proceedings.

Article continues after this advertisement

“People will forget the evidence we presented. People will lose interest,” he said.

He earlier said that allowing a prolonged defense presentation could stretch Duterte’s trial past year-end, and might run until February 2027.

Article continues after this advertisement

The impeachment court, through presiding officer Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero, approved the withdrawals, with the caveat that Articles 1 and 4 could no longer be refiled for the duration of the 20th Congress, or until the end of Duterte’s term in June 2028.

Escudero also lifted the sub judice rule on the charges that were dropped, opening the door for both Duterte and the prosecution to continue arguing over the grave threats and confidential funds outside the Senate impeachment court.

Sison warns of ‘mistrial’

The lead defense lawyer, Sheila Sison, strongly opposed the prosecution’s move, saying it would deny Duterte the right to answer the charges and the evidence against her, except for the bribery case.

She warned that there could be a mistrial if the impeachment court allowed the withdrawal of the three articles and effectively prevent Duterte from countering the evidence already presented.

She also rejected the lifting of the sub judice rule, saying it would lead to an “FFA,” or a free-for-all.

Prosecution spokesperson Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. pointed out that the defense panel’s reaction to the lifting of the sub judice rule was “very telling” in that they would have an excuse not to openly explain their side on the two charges against Duterte to the public.

“Let’s simplify this. What does this mean?” Tolosa said. “I’ll say this directly, because it’s clear: They have no evidence. That is mere posturing, so that they will have an excuse.”

Chua cited the charge of misuse of confidential funds amounting to P612.5

million by the Vice President, which had been alleged since 2024 in the House.

“Their sole legal strategy or remedy was to always question the jurisdiction of the committee [on justice], of the impeachment court, but when it came to the merits, they could not present anything,” he said.

He said that if they really had evidence in her defense, they should have been able to present this to the Commission on Audit (COA). He pointed out that one of the things demanded by the COA was for receipts that medicines had been purchased with the use of Duterte’s confidential funds as she had reported.

‘All general denials’

Tolosa said that from Duterte’s answer to the articles of impeachment and in her pretrial brief, all the defense did was to copy the prosecution’s set of witnesses.

He said the Vice President and her lawyers gave no explanation regarding grave threats, the confidential funds and bribery charges. “It’s all general denials, it’s all technicalities,” he said.

In their pretrial brief, the defense did not present any evidence or list of witnesses, who would respond to the allegations in the prosecution’s complaint, he added.

He also said that the defense immediately objected to the idea of calling Duterte to the witness stand before the prosecution could even make a formal motion on it. The prosecutors eventually dropped the plan.

Tolosa pointed out that the defense had been offered the opportunity to challenge the prosecution case after the presentation of evidence for each article but they rejected the proposal.

The impeachment court had allotted 92 days for the trial. There have so far been 39 sessions over 15 weeks.

After a recess starting next Tuesday, it will resume on Nov. 9 with Duterte’s lawyers mounting the defense on her alleged undeclared and unexplained wealth. Escudero said they would be given 25 days to present their case.

Panelo corrected

The Vice President’s spokesperson, Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., denounced the withdrawal of the three articles of impeachment against Duterte, saying that it denied her right to due process and was “an admission that the allegations lacked basis from the very beginning.”

He erroneously said that “P500 million of [taxpayer] money [was] consumed on charges that will never be voted on.”

He based this on the Senate’s P25 million daily operating cost over 20 trial days.

“I’m no expert on ‘sensitivity analysis’ but you could reasonably estimate that the total public cost of these now-abandoned articles easily exceeds one (1) billion pesos,” he said on his Facebook page.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian immediately corrected his claim, saying that it was “completely untrue.”

He said the amount Panelo cited represented operating cost of the entire Senate, including salaries for senators and personnel, maintenance, rentals and utilities—costs to the chamber “with or without an impeachment trial.”

Expenses directly related to the trial have totaled P14,553,561.70 over 44 trial days, or an average of about P330,763 per day, he said. The spending included meals for Senate staff for extended sessions, supplies, overtime pay and rental of an outside venue for budget deliberation.

Must apologize

Sen. Panfilo Lacson urged Panelo to “rectify an obviously misleading figure of P500 million.”

He said the national budget for the impeachment trial, mostly unspent, was originally P27.5 million. Roughly P2 million had been spent on the senator-judges’ robes and other items, Lacson said.

In his Facebook statement, Panelo said that the dropping of the charges deprived Duterte “of the vindication of the acquittal she deserves if the Court ruled only on the basis of evidence and law.”

“What is equally troubling, however, is the lack of outrage by the Senate majority,” he added. “Wasn’t your time wasted?”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“So why the quiet?” he continued. “Is it because convicting the Vice President earlier may reduce the damage to Senator-Judges seeking elective posts in 2028? The silence is deafening. Don’t be too obvious.” /cb