The lawyers of Vice President Sara on Monday filed their pleadings with the Senate impeachment court, praying for the dismissal of the articles of impeachment, citing constitutional infirmities and procedural defects.
Defense lead counsel Michael Poa did not elaborate on the document's details—which have yet to be made public—but he flagged a handful of so-called legal flaws in the articles of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives with the Senate for trial.
“We have raised what we saw or what we believe in as constitutional infirmities, defects in the procedure, and also the deficiency [in] the substantive aspect of these allegations. We feel that the allegations do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses against the Vice President. And for that, those are the grounds by which we think dismissal is warranted,” Poa told reporters in a briefing shortly after the filing.
Despite the so-called legal deficiencies, the defense pledged that they would confront the allegations head-on, with Poa asserting that they are “very confident that the Vice President did not commit an impeachable offense.
Poa and four other lawyers comprising Duterte’s defense team personally submitted to the Senate the 50-page written response to the articles of impeachment at around 4:30 p.m., just hours before the 7 p.m. cutoff.
The VP was a no-show during the filing, although Poa claimed she would appear in the trial “if needed.”
The defense’s response to the articles is “without prejudice” to the pending petition that they filed before the Supreme Court in April, according to Poa. The petition in question sought to halt the impeachment proceedings in the House back then, prior to the approval and passage of the articles on 11 May. The high court consolidated similar petitions filed by pro-Duterte groups, but has yet to hand down a decision as of June.
Another glaring example of the supposed procedural flaws raised by Poa was the pieces of evidence presented during the hearings in the House. Poa did not go into detail but argued that most of the evidence that underpinned the articles was not originally attached to the impeachment complaint and was presented only during the proceedings.
“There is no evidence attached to the impeachment complaints. The alleged evidence they released was only gathered in committee proceedings after we had already filed our answer to the [House] committee on justice,” Poa pointed out.
A portion of the summary of the defense’s response alleged, “The proceedings were tainted by pre-judgment. Even before the conclusion of the hearings, several members of the committee publicly declared that sufficient votes already existed to impeach the Vice President and that the evidence against her was allegedly already overwhelming."
The VP is facing allegations of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. She was first impeached on 5 February last year. However, the Supreme Court unanimously struck it down on a technicality before the Senate could hold a trial proper.
The charges are primarily related to the alleged plot to kill President Marcos Jr., and the misuse of over P600 million in confidential funds, and unexplained wealth.
During the impeachment proceedings in the lower chamber, the justice panel summoned the Anti-Money Laundering Council, which subsequently flagged the bank records of the VP, primarily the P6.7 billion in purported suspicious transactions. The amount in question allegedly flowed through the bank accounts of VP and her husband, Mans Carpio, from 2006 to 2025, although the same did not reflect the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth of Duterte.
In deriding the articles, the defense argued that the accusations include acts “even before she became vice president,” and that there is no evidence that will support that the amount was illegally obtained.
The trial proper is expected to kick off on 6 July, with the schedule tentatively set to three times a week. Poa said they will abide by the Senate calendar.
