No impeach mistrial over withdrawn charges — prof

The withdrawal of three impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte could prompt a legal challenge before the Supreme Court (SC), but declaring a mistrial would face legal hurdles, a law professor said.

San Beda University law professor Adonis Gabriel said the withdrawal did not automatically establish a denial of due process warranting a mistrial, since Duterte would no longer face judgment on the three charges.

“The effect of not proceeding with or withdrawing the three articles of impeachment is that the VP is acquitted of the three articles of impeachment,” Gabriel said in a radio interview.

The prosecution on 13 October withdrew three of the four impeachment articles against Duterte, leaving Article II, which concerns allegations of unexplained wealth, as the sole remaining charge before the Senate impeachment court.

Duterte’s defense had argued that withdrawing the charges after the prosecution presented evidence would deprive her of the opportunity to rebut the allegations before the senator-judges.

Gabriel explained that the withdrawal meant Duterte would no longer face conviction on those articles, making a mistrial difficult to justify on that basis alone.

Acquittal

“In ordinary cases, this is a victory for the defense counsel because three of the four charges filed against their client have already been won,” he said.

He noted that an impeachment trial is sui generis, or unique in nature, because the proceedings are intended not only for the senator-judges but also for the public.

Gabriel said the concept of a mistrial is not expressly recognized in the Philippines, unlike in the United States, where courts may declare one over serious irregularities, including violations of due process.

Nonetheless, he cited Galman v Sandiganbayan, the landmark case involving the assassination of former Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., in which the SC overturned the acquittal of the accused after finding that the proceedings had been manipulated under the administration of then-President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

“The Sandiganbayan did not say it was a mistrial, nor did the Supreme Court say that what happened was a mistrial. It was a sham trial,” Gabriel said.

The SC found that interference had undermined the independence of the proceedings. The case established a narrow exception to the general rule that an acquittal is final and protected against reversal under the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.

Public response

Gabriel said the circumstances surrounding Duterte’s impeachment trial were different.

“The result of a mistrial is that the hearings are repeated. The entire process is repeated,” he said, explaining that a mistrial would require proceedings to be repeated to remedy a serious procedural defect, rather than automatically terminate the case.

In accepting the prosecution’s withdrawal, the Senate impeachment court lifted the sub judice restrictions on the three articles, allowing Duterte, her lawyers, prosecutors and witnesses to publicly address the allegations.

Gabriel said this would give the vice president an opportunity to explain her side to the public, even though the senator-judges would no longer rule on the three charges.

“First, the vice president can no longer be convicted on the three articles of impeachment,” the law professor said. “Second, they have the opportunity to present their defenses without rules or objections from the opposing party,” he added.

Gabriel added that Duterte could pursue appropriate legal action against witnesses who testified against her if there were sufficient grounds, including possible complaints for perjury or violations of confidentiality.

Further delays

“If the vice president wants to vindicate herself, she should file the appropriate cases against those who testified against her,” he said.

He added that the defense could also consider an administrative complaint against the Senate over alleged violations of its rights.

Gabriel said the defense’s proposed witnesses could become another point of contention when the impeachment trial resumes on 9 November, as the court would have to determine whether their testimonies were relevant to the remaining charge.

“In my view, the defense’s plan is really to prolong the proceedings,” Gabriel said, warning that delays could exhaust public patience and bring the case closer to the 2028 elections.

He also raised the possibility of a defense walkout if the court rejected many of its proposed witnesses.

“The defense could also walk out because the impeachment court did not allow them to present most of their witnesses,” Gabriel said.

“Those who remember the impeachment trial of former President Estrada will recall that the prosecution walked out because it was not allowed to open the envelope,” he added.

A conviction would remove Duterte from office and disqualify her from holding public office, potentially affecting her political plans ahead of the 2028 elections.