MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court will determine on Monday how to proceed with the prosecution’s reported decision to drop Article III of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, with the move potentially affecting the trial calendar and the sequence of presenting evidence.
Senate impeachment court spokesman Regie Tongol said the court had received a formal manifestation seeking to drop Article III, but the matter remains subject to action by the presiding officer, Senator Francis “Chiz" Escudero.
“The manifestation filed with the impeachment court will suffice,” Tongol told reporters during his press briefing following the 37th day of the trial on Oct. 10, adding that the court would await the presiding officer’s action or any questions he might raise on the matter.
House of Representatives lead prosecutor Chel Diokno announced that the prosecution would rest its case on Article II after presenting financial forensic expert Alexander Cabrera. Tongol said the prosecution’s next move would depend on the court’s action on the manifestation concerning Article III.
The prosecution has yet to formally rest its case on Article I. Tongol recalled that Diokno had been preparing to do so when the presiding officer raised the possibility of presenting additional witnesses, including Col. Lachica and Maj. Gen. Nolasco.
The court must therefore await the House prosecution panel’s decision on how to proceed with the remaining article, he said.
Tongol declined to predict whether dropping Article III would alter the trial calendar or when Duterte’s defense could begin presenting evidence. He said the court would have to determine whether to allow a period for the formal offer of prosecution evidence and the defense’s comments, as is customary in ordinary court proceedings.
While expediting the trial remains a priority, Tongol stressed that speed must not come at the expense of due process.
“The impeachment court will have to consider everything to balance the interests of everyone,” he said, adding that procedural pauses should not automatically be considered unreasonable delays.
The court is also expected to clarify whether the defense must present its evidence in the same sequence as the prosecution’s articles or may choose its preferred order.
Tongol said either approach was possible, but emphasized that the presiding officer would have to rule on the question.
