All in
Conviction on even one Article of Impeachment is sufficient to remove an official from office and disqualify them from holding any public post in perpetuity.
Last week, the prosecution in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took what may turn out to be its biggest gamble when it dropped three of the four Articles of Impeachment.
Gone are Article I on confidential funds, Article III on bribery, and Article IV covering the Vice President’s threats against President Marcos, the First Lady, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. The prosecution has decided to stake everything on Article II, involving alleged unexplained wealth.
Predictably, the defense cried foul. The VP’s lawyers argued the move violated due process because the prosecution was allowed to present evidence on Articles I and IV, while the defense will be denied the opportunity to rebut that evidence.
Unfortunately for them, due process does not work that way. The Senate impeachment court has ruled that the prosecution may withdraw charges it no longer wishes to pursue. Equally important, VP Sara can no longer be convicted on the basis of those withdrawn articles.
Articles I and IV were withdrawn with prejudice, meaning they cannot simply be resurrected later in the impeachment proceedings. This means that insofar as this trial is concerned, she is off the hook on those charges.
Due process requires an opportunity to defend yourself against accusations for which you may be held liable. It does not grant the right to demand a trial on charges that have been abandoned simply so they can obtain a public acquittal.
Another criticism is that dropping the three articles amounted to an admission that they were weak. Again, this is inaccurate.
The prosecution explained that the decision is strategic. The trial has been running since July, and anyone who has actually watched it knows how painfully slow things can move.
The defense has shown itself perfectly capable of stretching cross-examinations across hours, raising objection after objection, and turning seemingly straightforward testimony into a mind-numbing procedural slog. Leave four articles on the table and this trial could easily drag well into 2027.
So the prosecution decided to go all in on what it believes is its strongest hand.
Article II now rests on the testimonies and records of the AMLC, BIR, banks, corporate filings, SALNs and the forensic analysis of CPA/lawyer Alexander Cabrera, who testified that Sara Duterte and Mans Carpio, by his conservative estimate, had P817.87 million in allegedly undeclared assets and income from 2022 to 2025.
The prosecution believes this is enough to convict the VP of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
There is logic to the strategy. Conviction on even one Article of Impeachment is sufficient to remove an official from office and disqualify them from holding any public post in perpetuity. If prosecutors believe they have already built a compelling case on unexplained wealth, narrowing the scope of the trial prevents the defense from turning the three other articles into months of delay.
Of course, by abandoning the other articles, the prosecution has deliberately removed its safety net. If Article II fails, there is nothing left to fall back on. It has placed all its chips on this single play.
We will soon find out whether this is a masterstroke or a miscalculation.
The trial resumes on 9 November, when the defense finally gets its turn to present evidence. After months of prosecution testimony, VP Sara’s lawyers will now have a much simpler task, since only one article remains.
Unfortunately for them, it also happens to be the one where they have the most explaining to do.