By Erika Mae P. Sinaking, Reporter
Pexcel John Bacon and Francessca S. Abalos
VICE-PRESIDENT (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio’s camp on Wednesday said the withdrawal of two impeachment charges had wasted about P500 million in taxpayers’ money, a figure disputed by Senator Panfilo M. Lacson, who said it represented the Senate’s regular operating expenses rather than the cost of the trial.
Salvador Paolo A. Panelo, Jr., the Vice-President’s spokesman, said the Senate impeachment court had spent 20 trial days hearing allegations of confidential fund misuse and grave threats before prosecutors withdrew the charges.
He estimated the cost at P25 million per day, excluding lawmakers’ salaries, legal fees, consultants and other expenses.
“This figure also excludes the cost of the ‘mini-trial’ of the House of Representatives on those articles,” Mr. Panelo said in a statement. “You could reasonably estimate that the total public cost of these now-abandoned articles easily exceeds one P1 billion.”
Mr. Panelo said the withdrawal showed that the allegations lacked merit from the outset and deprived Ms. Duterte of an opportunity to challenge them before the impeachment court.
“It also deprived her of the vindication of the acquittal she deserves if the court ruled only on the basis of evidence and law,” he added.
He questioned whether prosecutors would be held accountable for the public funds spent on the proceedings and alleged that the impeachment case was intended to prevent the Vice-President from running for President in 2028.
Mr. Lacson disputed the P500-million estimate, saying the P25-million daily figure referred to the Senate’s regular operating expenses, not additional spending on the impeachment trial.
He said he had used the figure in July to criticize a 28-day disruption of legislative work during the Senate presidency of Alan Peter S. Cayetano, estimating that P700 million in operating expenses had been incurred without legislation being passed.
Mr. Lacson said the Senate had spent only about P2 million of the P27.5 million allocated for the impeachment trial in 2025, mostly on senator-judges’ robes and other supplies.
The remaining funds were carried over under the continuing appropriations provision of the national budget, he added.
“I urge the VP’s spokesman to rectify an obviously misleading figure of P500 million, as I assume it was an honest mistake on his part,” Mr. Lacson said.
Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian said in June that the impeachment trial did not entail additional expenses, with prosecution and defense teams paying for their own meals, internet access and printing.
The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday allowed House prosecutors to withdraw three of the four articles against Ms. Duterte, leaving allegations of unexplained wealth as the sole remaining charge.
The withdrawn articles covered alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., First Lady Louise “Liza” Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez.
HOUSE DEFENDS WITHDRAWAL
House prosecutors on Wednesday defended their decision to withdraw the three articles, saying the allegations involving confidential funds and grave threats could still be pursued through separate criminal proceedings.
Prosecutors on Tuesday said narrowing the case would let them concentrate on evidence supporting the unexplained wealth charge, which they think is sufficient to secure a conviction.
Party-list Rep. James Mark Terry L. Ridon said dropping the articles from the impeachment case would not prevent authorities from investigating the allegations or pursuing accountability through other legal channels.
“This is not simply a withdrawal without consequences,” he told a news briefing.
He said prosecutors would focus on the unexplained wealth charge while leaving other allegations to the appropriate investigative agencies.
Davao City Rep. Paolo Z. Duterte criticized the prosecution for withdrawing three articles after spending months presenting allegations against his sister.
Mr. Ridon rejected the criticism, saying the defense had opposed an earlier proposal to alternate the presentation of prosecution and defense evidence for each impeachment article.
Manila Rep. Joel R. Chua said prosecutors had accepted the proposal, but the defense refused. “The prosecution agreed. They did not agree. They refused,” he said.
He said the Vice-President could have addressed questions about confidential fund spending by submitting supporting documents to the Commission on Audit (CoA).
Mr. Chua cited CoA’s decision upholding the disallowance of confidential fund expenditures, arguing that it supported prosecutors’ concerns about how the money had been accounted for.
Private prosecutor Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa, Jr. rejected allegations that the withdrawn articles were intended to damage Ms. Duterte’s reputation.
“There was no invention, no slander,” he said, referring to the grave threat allegations.
Mr. Tolosa said the allegations were based on statements and documents presented during the proceedings, while the amounts questioned in the confidential fund case came from documentary evidence.
House prosecution adviser Robert Ace S. Barbers said testimony and documents presented during the trial remained relevant despite the withdrawal of the articles.
He cited testimony about the alleged transfer of confidential funds to people who were not authorized special disbursing officers.
Mr. Barbers also pointed to testimony from bank representatives about the financial accounts of Ms. Duterte and her husband Manases R. Carpio, saying the reported balances raised questions about their declared assets.
He urged the Office of the Ombudsman to examine the evidence presented during the impeachment proceedings as part of its investigation into alleged confidential fund misuse at the Office of the Vice-President and Department of Education.
“I personally believe it is already ripe and sufficient, and the allegations are substantiated,” Mr. Barbers said, referring to the possibility of filing charges before the Sandiganbayan.
NBI BIAS ALLEGATIONS
Separately, Malacañang defended the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against accusations of bias from Ms. Duterte’s camp over an investigation involving allegations against the Vice President and her family.
Her lawyer Paul Lawrence S. Lim questioned public statements by NBI Director Melvin A. Matibag about allegations made by Rodulfo M. Gracioso, Jr., who has been described as a former bagman for the Duterte family.
Mr. Lim said the statements appeared to prejudge the Vice President and her family while impeachment proceedings were under way.
“We trust that this is not representative of the entire agency, from which professional and apolitical investigative work is expected, and which must never be weaponized for partisan purposes,” he said in a statement.
Palace Press Officer Clarissa A. Castro said allegations should be answered with evidence rather than attacks on investigators.
“The proper response is to refute, through evidence, the alleged crimes or corruption being attributed to her,” she told reporters.
She said the government would not prejudge the allegations before evidence was presented or a court issued a ruling.
“Since the NBI and its director are paid by the government, that is because they are working,” she said. “It is more difficult when you are receiving a salary as a public servant but doing nothing except taking vacations and attacking other officials.”
Ms. Castro said the Executive branch would not interfere with the prosecution’s legal strategy or the decisions of senator-judges.