3 charges dropped, so Sara can’t answer

Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team on Tuesday insisted on its right to rebut three impeachment charges the Senate has allowed the House prosecution to drop, arguing that she should be able to challenge allegations already aired before the court.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison pushed back after the impeachment court ruled that Duterte need not present evidence against the withdrawn articles because they would no longer be put to a vote, leaving only the charge of unexplained wealth for the senator-judges to decide.

“They presented their evidence. The court allowed them time, gave them an opportunity, gave them platform, but now, since they withdrew, your Vice President can no longer speak or defend herself from those allegations,” Sison said of the prosecution’s decision.

“Just for the record, Your Honor, we find that not only a bit unfair, but I would say, it’s completely unfair,” she added.

House lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro had informed the Senate that the prosecution would no longer pursue Article I on the alleged misuse of confidential funds, Article III on bribery, and Article IV on alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Only Article II on allegations that Duterte failed to fully declare her assets and to divest from her business interests will remain for the Senate court’s consideration.

The impeachment court subsequently approved the withdrawal, ruling that Duterte would no longer need to present evidence or witnesses against the three charges, which would no longer be submitted to the senator-judges for a vote or verdict.

‘She deserves to be heard’

Senator-judge Joel Villanueva, however, said he believed Duterte should still be given an opportunity to speak before the impeachment court on the withdrawn charges.

“I have great reservation about not giving the respondent an opportunity to speak freely on the three abandoned articles because I believe she deserves to be heard in this court,” Villanueva said in English and Filipino.

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano also questioned the prosecution’s decision to withdraw the three articles after presenting evidence on the charges.

“If all the articles were continued or all were withdrawn, there wouldn’t be a problem. If there was no evidence presented for the articles that were withdrawn, there also would be no problem. But the problem is you presented evidence until the end. Then you’re gonna insist that all four cases are strong,” Cayetano said.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano, meanwhile, said she was surprised by the prosecution’s decision and believed the defense was also caught off-guard.

“Give them time to decide how they want to avail of this benefit or this right that this court would like to give them. They can speak about it now in public,” she said of the defense.

Rule 18 lifted

While the court ruled that Duterte need not present evidence on the withdrawn articles, presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero said that Rule 18 or the sub judice rule would no longer apply, allowing both sides to discuss the allegations publicly.

Rule 18 had required the parties, their lawyers, and witnesses to refrain from making public comments on the merits of matters pending before the impeachment court.

With the three articles no longer subject to adjudication, Escudero said the restrictions would no longer apply.

“Upon the effectivity of this order, the separate merits of Articles I, III and IV are no longer pending for adjudication. Accordingly, the prosecutors, the respondent, their respective counsels, and witnesses may publicly address, explain, and respond to any matter contained in those withdrawn articles,” Escudero said.

He noted that Duterte could defend herself outside the courtroom, as she would no longer need to answer the allegations by presenting evidence before the impeachment court.

Sison objected to the ruling, warning that easing the restrictions midway through the trial would undermine the integrity of the proceedings.

“The essence of the sub judice rule really is not limited to the practical value of regulating the proceedings. It actually goes into the integrity or maintaining the integrity of the proceedings,” she said.