Adiong rejects Sara’s unfair-treatment claims, cites constitutional duties

House prosecutors on Saturday rejected Vice President Sara Duterte’s claims of unfair treatment in her impeachment trial, arguing that her position does not exempt her from accountability for alleged violations of the Constitution.

House prosecution spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong said Duterte could not use her office to avoid scrutiny over allegations that she failed to comply with constitutional requirements governing public officials.

“It’s unfair actually how she tried to shield herself by being vice president from ever complying with the requirement of the Constitution,” Adiong said in a radio interview.

Duterte’s defense team earlier criticized the prosecution’s decision to withdraw three of the four impeachment articles, arguing that the move deprives her of the opportunity to answer allegations already aired before the Senate impeachment court.

“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,” Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison said of the prosecution’s decision on Tuesday.

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

But Adiong said these allegations went to the heart of the constitutional obligations attached to the vice presidency and the public’s trust in elected officials.

“The aggrieved party here is the people,” he said, arguing that Duterte had failed to adequately disclose her wealth and that of her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.

The prosecution alleges that Duterte failed to divest from business interests after assuming office and did not fully disclose her financial affairs.

Constitutional obligations

Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution prohibits the president and vice president from participating in business or holding financial interests in government contracts, franchises or special privileges during their tenure. It also requires them to avoid conflicts of interest.

Adiong said corporate records presented during the trial showed Duterte remained listed as a director of private companies after becoming vice president in June 2022.

“One does not need to be a lawyer to understand that she had actually committed violation in the Constitution. Una, hindi siya nag-divest ng interest niya sa mga negosyo noong siya naging bise presidente,” Adiong said.

“Pangalawa, ang kaniyang submitted BIR record doon sa mga other possible sources na pwede niyang pagkunan other than her salary, kumuha din siya ng sweldo sa Davao City for two consecutive SALN,” he added.

Rejecting the suggestion that the payments could have been delayed compensation for her previous service as mayor, Adiong said the records indicated that she had received money from the city for two years while serving as vice president.

Adiong argued that Duterte could have supported Davao City without accepting compensation.

“Kung gusto niyang tulungan ng Davao City, sana hindi na lang siya nagpasweldo. Nilibre na lang niya ito,” he said.

One charge remains

Despite withdrawing three articles, Adiong said the prosecution believed the remaining unexplained-wealth charge was sufficient to secure Duterte’s removal from office.

“Pero ito kasi isa lang ang magiging paksa ng mga senato-judges na kanilang ipagbobotohan. So it’s now or never, parang ganoon ang interpretation ko doon,” he said.

The remaining case draws on allegations of unexplained wealth, incomplete financial disclosures and failure to divest from business interests.

Adiong said the decision to drop the other articles also reflected concerns that continued disputes could prolong the proceedings and fuel public fatigue with the impeachment process.

“We don’t need to get all other four articles of the decision by the court na guilty for us to be satisfied with the decision,” he said. “Kasi isa lang naman would only suffice.”

The prosecution is due to submit its formal offer of evidence by 23 October, ahead of the trial’s scheduled resumption on 9 November, when the defense is expected to begin presenting its case.