Strongest evidence coming — House

To create anticipation, House lead prosecutor and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro said the prosecution has yet to present what many consider the strongest article in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, expressing confidence that the panel will substantiate its allegations as the trial progresses.

Speaking in an interview on ANC, Luistro rated the prosecution team’s performance during the first week of the impeachment trial as “10 out of 10,” saying the panel accomplished its objectives despite the pressure of opening the proceedings.

“I would say that we are 10 over 10,” Luistro said. “We were able to achieve all our goals each day.”

According to Luistro, the prosecution’s opening statement was intended to explain the impeachment case in language ordinary Filipinos could understand. At the same time, the succeeding hearing focused on presenting evidence supporting the article on grave threats.

She said the prosecution also considered the cross-examination of its first witness a success because the defense failed to undermine the testimony.

“We honestly believe they were not able to debunk the testimony presented during the direct examination,” Luistro said.

Addressing criticism over the lengthy presentation of the controversial video containing Duterte’s alleged threats, Luistro said the prosecution was required to comply with rules governing electronic evidence despite the video’s widespread public circulation.

“It is not enough that the whole world has already seen it,” she said. “We still have to comply with the requirements for presenting and identifying every piece of evidence before the court.”

The prosecution has requested subpoenas for Office of the Vice President chief of staff Zuleika Lopez, National Bureau of Investigation officials, bank records, Anti-Money Laundering Council records and Bureau of Internal Revenue documents as the impeachment trial moves into succeeding articles, she confirmed.

Hidden wealth next

She said arguments scheduled this week will focus on whether evidence involving acts allegedly committed before Duterte assumed office as vice president in 2022 may be admitted during the impeachment proceedings.

One of the prosecution’s most anticipated presentations involves the article on unexplained wealth.

Luistro acknowledged public interest in the allegations but said the panel intentionally scheduled the article later in the trial.

“We understand the gravity of the allegation, and we wanted to feel the level of confidence that we are already prepared to present it,” she said.

She explained that the prosecution chose to begin with the articles on grave threats, confidential funds, and bribery because those matters had already undergone extensive discussion during congressional investigations.

“They are very familiar to us because they were the subject of inquiries in aid of legislation,” Luistro said.

She also defended the legal standard being applied in the impeachment proceedings after the defense questioned whether prosecutors could prove Duterte actually contracted an assassin.

She stressed that impeachment is fundamentally different from a criminal prosecution.

“What we are testing here is whether the impeachable official continues to possess the fitness to serve in public office,” Luistro said.

She noted that the Constitution does not impose imprisonment as a penalty in impeachment cases but only removal from office and disqualification from holding future public office.

Responding to questions about the possibility of surprise witnesses similar to those presented during the impeachment trials of former President Joseph Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona, Luistro said the current proceedings differ because witness lists and documentary evidence were disclosed during pretrial.

She acknowledged that the element of surprise is largely absent but argued that Senate proceedings remain significantly different from the House impeachment hearings.

“The entirety of the testimony we will elicit from our witnesses is entirely different,” she said. “We need to go through everything so that it becomes part of the records of the impeachment trial.”

Luistro also confirmed that “Mary Grace Piattos,” whom the House Good Government Committee previously described as a fictitious recipient of confidential funds, remains on the prosecution’s witness list. However, she said it would ultimately be up to the impeachment court whether such testimony would be allowed.

“Our position remains that she is fictitious because the Philippine Statistics Authority already said there is no such name matching its records,” Luistro said.