Senate drops 3 impeachment articles vs Sara

The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday allowed the prosecution to drop all Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte except Article 2 on unexplained wealth, whose evidence, according to the panel, is compelling enough to warrant her removal from office.

Dropped Articles 1, 3, and 4 center on the alleged misuse of confidential funds in the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, “bribery” in the DepEd, and “grave threats” to the life of President Marcos Jr., respectively.

The withdrawal effectively deprives the defense of the opportunity to rebut, before the Senate impeachment court, all the evidence the panel of prosecutors laid bare publicly against Duterte, which defense lead lawyer Sheila Sison denounced as “completely unfair.”

Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero ruled that the defense no longer needs to present its counter-evidence and witnesses against the dropped articles, but allowed public discussion about them since they are no longer covered by the sub judice rule.

The court has enforced the sub judice rule prohibiting the rival parties, including the senator-judges, from making public statements or disclosures on the merits, evidence, or outcome of the impeachment case. These restrictions remain in effect, however, on Article 2.

Articles 1 and 4 were dropped without prejudice, which means they cannot be revived, refiled, or used again as grounds to impeach Duterte during the present 20th Congress. This does not, however, grant immunity from regular criminal courts or other administrative proceedings.

Since no evidence or witnesses have been presented for Article 3, it is withdrawn without prejudice, and it is strictly barred from being revived in the current trial.

As a result, only Article 2 will be submitted to senator-judges for a verdict, tentatively set for November.

The defense has 26 days, starting 9 November, to present its counter-evidence on Article 2, the last case the prosecution will examine before resting its case on Monday.

Escudero sustained the ruling despite strong objections from the defense and a handful of senator-judges, who argued that Duterte should be afforded the same privilege as the prosecution by allowing her lawyers to counter the accusations leveled against her.

Sison argued that the gravity of the allegations laid bare to the public for 38 days will besmirch the VP's reputation if the prosecution were allowed to drop the articles unchallenged.

“The prosecution cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense. In other words, the prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested,” Sison argued.

Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said the withdrawal of the articles was intended to streamline the proceedings and save time and resources.

Corona precedent

She maintained that the prosecutors have presented sufficient evidence for Article 2 “to stand on its own” or “substantial and compelling” enough to justify Duterte's conviction and removal from office for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

Nonetheless, she pointed out that the impeachment court had already confronted a similar issue in 2012 during the impeachment trial of the late Supreme Court chief justice Renato Corona.

Sison pushed back, saying Luistro’s argument was misplaced because the Corona precedent allowed the withdrawal of several articles from the original list before the prosecution presented any evidence on those articles.

Sison stressed that the prosecution’s withdrawal of charges should not deprive Duterte of her right to rebut the accusations, emphasizing that expediting the trial must not compromise due process and fairness.

“Your Honor, there is no doubt the prosecution took their time and completed their presentation. And now, what we now want to impart to the public is, this is your vice president,” she stressed.

“But now, since they withdrew, your vice president can no longer speak or defend herself from those allegations…Your Honor, we find that not only a bit unfair, I would say it's completely unfair,” Sison lamented.

Senator-judges Alan Cayetano and Pia Cayetano concurred with the defense's position. They contended that Duterte’s lawyers should not be denied the opportunity to counter the allegations in the dropped articles, and that balancing the impeachment proceedings with urgent legislative responsibilities, particularly the 2027 national budget, should not come at the respondent's expense.

Senator-judge Joel Villanueva agreed that Duterte should be given fair time to defend herself against the allegations, despite the prosecution abandoning the three articles.

The submitted evidence for the dropped articles stays on record, but with strict access. Public access and internet uploads will be strictly vetted, redacted, and watermarked to protect back-secrecy and data privacy.