THE Senate impeachment court granted the prosecution panel’s request Tuesday to withdraw three of the four impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte, leaving Article II, which alleges unexplained wealth, statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) violations and prohibited business interests as the sole remaining charge.
In withdrawing three of the four impeachment articles, the prosecution panel said evidence of P817.87 million in alleged unexplained wealth was sufficient to secure her conviction.
“Four articles of impeachment were filed against the respondent vice president. Today, the prosecution respectfully manifests that it will no longer pursue three of them. It will stand on one, and that is Article II on unexplained wealth,” lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said in her manifestation.
Luistro said the decision would streamline the proceedings by reducing the number of witnesses and the volume of evidence the court would have to consider.
The prosecution had listed 10 witnesses for the article on grave threats but presented only three. For the article on confidential funds, it named 27 witnesses and presented 11. Of the 15 witnesses listed for the unexplained wealth article, 11 had testified, excluding individual bank and insurance witnesses.
The prosecution will no longer present the five witnesses listed for the bribery article. In all, about 32 witnesses will no longer be called to testify.
“We believe we have provided sufficient evidence on all these allegations,” Luistro said. “We believe that evidence is substantial and compelling, and warrants the respondent’s removal from office for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.”
Luistro described the decision to pursue only Article II as “the most judicious course consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation.” She cited the impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona, saying the prosecution in that case had also dropped certain articles and proceeded with the remaining charges.
“That precedent recognizes the prosecution’s privilege to determine which articles to pursue and which to drop,” Luistro said.
The withdrawn articles cover the alleged misuse of confidential funds under Article I, alleged bribery under Article III, and grave threats, including threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., under Article IV.
The prosecution’s decision followed the presentation of financial evidence by forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera, who estimated that Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, had P817,874,867 in alleged unexplained wealth from 2022 to 2025.
Cabrera said the amount was a conservative estimate based on his examination of the couple’s financial records.
He told the court that the figure could reach as much as P1.5 billion under less conservative accounting methods.
The P817.87-million estimate covers allegedly undeclared cash, personal and real properties, computed undeclared income, and income attributed to several corporate entities.
The highest annual amount was recorded in 2024 at P264.22 million, followed by P195.69 million in 2025, P190.63 million in 2022 and P167.34 million in 2023.
Cabrera identified P207.70 million in allegedly undeclared cash over the four-year period, comprising P60.21 million in 2022, P80.70 million in 2023, P23.17 million in 2024 and P43.61 million in 2025.
He also identified P143.50 million in allegedly undeclared personal and real properties, net of deductions. The annual figures were P76.15 million in 2022, P3.93 million in 2023, P52.02 million in 2024 and P11.40 million in 2025.
The analyst’s computation included P111.85 million in allegedly undeclared income attributed to the couple, broken down into P50.47 million in 2022, P12.20 million in 2023, P28.03 million in 2024 and P21.15 million in 2025.
For corporate entities Cale88 and Metro City Chow, Cabrera calculated P142.20 million in alleged undeclared income from 2022 to 2025. The annual amounts were P3.79 million in 2022, P14.79 million in 2023, P86.94 million in 2024 and P36.67 million in 2025.
For GenCorp Industries, the computed undeclared income reached P212.63 million over three years: P55.71 million in 2023, P74.06 million in 2024 and P82.86 million in 2025. No amount was recorded for 2022 under this category.
Defense view
Defense counsel Sheila Sison on Tuesday warned that the prosecution’s decision to drop three of the four impeachment articles could undermine due process and unfairly restrict the defense’s presentation of evidence.
Sison argued that while the prosecution has the prerogative to withdraw charges, it should not be allowed to dictate the scope of the defense’s case after the impeachment court had already spent considerable time and government resources hearing evidence on the accusations.
She warned that allowing the prosecution to determine which accusations the defense could answer would give it extraordinary power over both sides of the proceedings.
“The authority to streamline, to achieve speed in a trial is not the authority to diminish due process or to altogether disregard the fundamental rules of fairness,” she said.
“And the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly.” Sison pointed out that the impeachment court had already devoted substantial time and resources to hearing prosecution witnesses and examining evidence relating to the charges that the prosecution now intends to abandon.
She warned that the defense could be forced to limit its presentation to the remaining article, potentially preventing Duterte from responding fully to accusations that had already been litigated before the court.
“The prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent,” she said, warning that expediting the proceedings should not come at the expense of due process and fairness.
Senate Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said the prosecution could not unilaterally determine whether an impeachment article would be withdrawn once it had been filed before the court.
Sison clarified that the defense was not objecting to the withdrawal itself but maintained that Duterte and her lawyers should decide how to proceed with their presentation of evidence.
Opportunity to respond
The ruling drew concern from Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, who warned against rushing the trial at the expense of fairness.
Cayetano said the court should give the defense a fair opportunity to respond to allegations already aired during weeks of hearings.
He also said deliberations on the 2027 national budget should take priority over an arbitrary deadline to finish the trial.
Cayetano said the Constitution sets no deadline for completing an impeachment trial, arguing that the Senate could take a break from the proceedings to focus on the budget and resume the trial later.
He cited the looming Super El Niño, unfinished flood control projects and the country’s economic challenges as reasons for prioritizing the budget.
Cayetano also questioned the prosecution’s decision to withdraw Articles I, III and IV after presenting witnesses and evidence on some of the allegations, saying the defense should not be denied the opportunity to answer claims already presented in court.
He likened the situation to a boxing match in which one side had already landed punches before asking the other side not to retaliate in the interest of saving time.
“The prosecution could have started with the ill-gotten wealth and stopped there. But you chose to spend 38 days,” Cayetano said.
He raised concerns that the allegations could continue to affect Duterte’s reputation even if the withdrawn articles would no longer be considered in the court’s verdict.
“This is not purely a judicial process. As we all know, it’s a political process also,” he said, adding that the proceedings affect not only the possibility of conviction or acquittal but also public perceptions of the vice president’s guilt or innocence.
Cayetano said the situation differed from the Corona impeachment trial, which he cited as a precedent for withdrawing an article before evidence and witnesses had been presented in court.
Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan moved to reconsider the decision allowing Duterte to publicly address allegations in the three withdrawn impeachment articles.
Pangilinan recalled that Senator-Judge Bam Aquino had raised the possibility of adjusting the trial procedure as early as July 15. Escudero had indicated that changes could be considered if both the prosecution and the defense agreed, Pangilinan said.
“Unfortunately, there was no agreement, and therefore we have to proceed as we have proceeded,” he said.
Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros noted that the defense had yet to inform the court how it wanted to proceed following the withdrawal and that the court had yet to act on any such request.
Hontiveros said she wanted to hear Duterte’s response to the allegations raised by the prosecution.
Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano, meanwhile, said she was shocked by the prosecution’s decision to withdraw the three articles and said the defense should be given sufficient time to process the development, given that Duterte’s reputation was at stake.
Escudero said Pangilinan’s motion had been taken under advisement pending a possible notice from the defense, adding that he could rule on it during the court’s recess.
Sub judice rule lifted
The motion followed the court’s decision to lift Rule 18 restrictions, also known as the sub judice rule, on public comments concerning Articles I, III and IV.
Under Escudero’s ruling, Duterte may publicly respond to allegations involving confidential funds, bribery and grave threats. Restrictions on public comments about the remaining Article II, which concerns alleged unexplained wealth, remain in effect.
“In particular, the respondent, given that she will no longer have an opportunity or need to defend against those articles through the presentation of evidence before the court, may therefore answer them, present her account, defend her conduct or reputation in the course of public discourse,” Escudero said.
He defended his decision to lift the restrictions, saying he did not want Duterte to be prevented from answering the allegations both in court and in public.
“The last thing I want anyone to say when they leave this courtroom is, ‘She was not allowed to respond in court, and now she is not even allowed to respond outside it,’” Escudero said.
The impeachment court adjourned the trial until Nov. 9, with several full-day hearings scheduled throughout the month.
The court will convene at 10 a.m. on Nov. 9, then suspend proceedings for the Senate’s afternoon session and resume the trial once the plenary session ends, following the same arrangement used on Oct. 8.
Full-day hearings are scheduled on Nov. 10, 12, 13, 19 and 20, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
On Nov. 11, proceedings will begin at 10 a.m. and may be suspended in the afternoon to allow the Senate to meet as a legislative body. A shorter hearing is scheduled for Nov. 23, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
