MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives prosecution panel on Tuesday withdrew three of the four articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, opting to pursue only Article II, which accuses her of having unexplained wealth.
Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro announced the decision as the Senate impeachment court resumed proceedings, saying the prosecution believed it had presented sufficient evidence to establish the remaining article.
“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 2 on unexplained wealth,” Luistro said in her manifestation.
She said the move would streamline the proceedings by limiting the witnesses and evidence that the court would have to consider.
During pretrial, the prosecution listed 10 witnesses for the article on threats but presented only three.
It named 27 witnesses for the article on confidential funds and presented 11, while 11 of the 15 witnesses listed for the unexplained wealth article 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, Luistro said.
She said Article II covers three matters: unexplained wealth, violations involving statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), and prohibited business interests.
“We believe we have provided sufficient evidence on all these allegations,” she said, maintaining that the evidence was “substantial and compelling” and warranted Duterte’s removal from office for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.
The prosecution formally manifested its intention to withdraw Article I on confidential funds, Article III on bribery, and Article IV on threats, subject to the impeachment court’s action.
Luistro cited the impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona, saying the prosecution had also withdrawn certain articles in that case and proceeded with the remaining charges.
Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison said the defense respected the prosecution’s decision but argued that the withdrawal should not limit Duterte’s opportunity to answer allegations already presented before the impeachment court.
Sison noted that the prosecution had spent 38 days presenting witnesses and evidence, with the proceedings and allegations also receiving public attention.
“The prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested,” Sison said.
She argued that allowing the prosecution to withdraw articles after presenting evidence could leave Duterte unable to rebut allegations already heard by the senator-judges.
“The right to be heard is not merely satisfied by allowing the respondent some room to present evidence on her behalf. It necessarily includes a meaningful opportunity to answer material accusations already publicly advanced against her,” Sison said.
She also disputed the prosecution’s reliance on the Corona impeachment trial as a precedent, noting that the withdrawal of five of the eight articles in that case took place before the presentation of evidence, unlike in Duterte’s case.
Sison stressed that the prosecution could decide which articles to pursue but could not dictate how the defense would present its case.
“The prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent,” she said.
She warned 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 article of impeachment would be withdrawn once it had been filed before the court.
“Once articles of impeachment are filed before the court, or any court for that matter, any complaint filed before any court for that matter, it is already subject to and under the jurisdiction and disposition of the court, not by the party,” Escudero said.
He said the court would treat the prosecution’s manifestation as a motion for consideration, taking into account the defense’s position.
Sison clarified that the defense was not objecting to the withdrawal itself but wanted to establish that Duterte and her lawyers would decide how to proceed with their presentation of evidence.
“Whatever will be the consequence of that decision will be, or would be, for them to bear alone, and not for the respondent,” she said.
Escudero replied that even without a formal objection from the defense, the withdrawal remained subject to the court’s decision and discretion.
