The House prosecution panel is still weighing whether to request the recusal of senator-judges accused of bias in the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte. But if such a move would delay the already long-stalled trial, prosecutors may choose not to pursue it, panel spokesperson Antonio Bucoy said Tuesday.

“The question is, should we ask for the recusal of judges perceived to be biased? That is being discussed, but if it will be a reason to delay [the trial], perhaps we should just set it aside. Anyway, the evidence will be presented to the judges, and the public will see it,” Bucoy said in his first formal media appearance since being tapped as the face of the House prosecution team.

Senators allied with the Vice President, Christopher “Bong” Go, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, Imee Marcos, and Robin Padilla, faced criticism for attempting to dismiss the impeachment outright before the Senate convened as an impeachment court and without hearing the case on its merits.

Their justification: the articles of impeachment allegedly violated the one-year bar rule and raised constitutional questions on the 20th Congress' jurisdiction to try the case.

This move drew widespread concern that the senators had already prejudged the case, undermining the impartiality of the proceedings. Progressive lawmakers, civil society groups, and even constitutional framer Christian Monsod have called for their inhibition from the trial.

Bucoy, however, emphasized that recusal is ultimately a personal decision by the senator-judges. He remains optimistic that compelling evidence will persuade all senators to judge fairly.

“For those who are biased, we hope that the evidence will convince them to be impartial and [render their] vote [fairly]. If the evidence calls for a conviction, then convict. If it’s for acquittal, then acquit. Everything depends on the evidence presented. So, for me, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt,” he said.

Still, Bucoy warned that Dela Rosa’s motion to dismiss the impeachment set a “bad and terrible” precedent that undermines the rule of law.

The motion, filed by Dela Rosa — President Duterte’s former police chief, now facing an ICC investigation — resulted in the remanding of the impeachment articles to the House, further delaying the trial.

Bucoy and several constitutional experts argued that the motion violated due process and the Constitution itself.

“That is not in the Constitution; that's betrayal…A judge doesn't make motions, but the other parties,” ucoy said, adding that Dela Rosa’s arguments mirrored those raised by Duterte’s camp in the Supreme Court.

"The grounds that Senator De La Rosa mentioned mirror the same grounds that the (Duterte camp) raised in the Supreme Court. So what’s happening is, Senator De La Rosa is acting like a defense counsel,” he added. 

Dela Rosa, however, maintained that there is no rule prohibiting a senator-judge from filing such a motion under the Senate’s impeachment rules.

Duterte, through her lawyers, had asked the Supreme Court to void the House-approved impeachment, arguing that it violated the one-year prohibition by endorsing a fourth complaint in February — just two months after the first three were filed.

The House prosecutors declined to amend or refile the remanded complaint, insisting that all impeachment rules and procedures had been “fully and strictly” followed.

VP Duterte faces impeachment on seven articles, including graft, bribery, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other high crimes. The charges stem from the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds during her time as Vice President and Education Secretary, and her reported assassination threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s family.

Duterte has denied the corruption allegations, and insisted her “kill plot” remarks were taken out of context.