The House prosecution panel said on Wednesday that pinning the impeachment case on just one article out of the entire Articles of Impeachment — on Vice President Sara Duterte's alleged unexplained wealth — is a risk worth taking.
House prosecutors Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro and Bicol Saro Party-list Representative Terry Ridon made the position a day after the Senate impeachment court accepted the prosecution’s motion to withdraw three out of four Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President.
This was after prosecution witness and financial forensic analyst Atty. Alexander Cabrera testified that the Vice President and her husband Atty. Mans Carpio have an unexplained wealth ranging from P817 million to P1.5 billion based on forensic investigation of Duterte's Statement of Assets, of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and their bank records, income tax documents and business interests records.
“If we don't get a conviction on this last article or remaining article, then that will be the end of this entire impeachment process. We are wiling to take that risk because we considered the impatience of the public, the challenging task of the impeachment court and ultimately, that will be beneficial as well on the part of the respondent Vice President,” Luistro, the House lead prosecutor, said in an interview on Super Radyo dzBB.
“We considered the previous impeachment cases against [former President Joseph] Estrada and [former Chief Justice Renato] Corona, so that option [of withdrawing certain Articles] has long been open to us. And when we saw [the evidence] on unexplained wealth, tumindi na ang pag-uusap [na] napakalakas nitong Article na ito, until we are able to come up with this decision,” Luistro added.
(And when we saw [the evidence] on unexplained wealth, the discussions centered on how strong this Article was, until we are able to come up with this decision,” she said.
Ridon then said that Cabrera’s testimony, alongside that of the officials from banks, insurance firm, Bureau of Internal Revenue and Anti-Money Laundering Council, of millions and billions worth of financial transactions involving the Vice President and her husband are too compelling not be be focused on.
“The unexplained wealth as testified by Atty. Cabrera is P817 million in a conservative estimate and P1.5 billion at his most liberal calculation. When the prosecutors discussed these numbers, we decided dito na tayo tumutok (let us focus on this). Ito po ang ebidensiya na kailangan (This is the evidence we need). We will rise or fall on the basis of unexplained wealth,” Ridon, one of the prosecutors for Article 2, said in a separate press conference.
“And let us not forget, their financial activities include P200,000 credit card bill for one dinner. Hindi ho lubos maisip ‘yan na puedeng mangyari sa isang ordinaryong Pilipino. Tatlong barangay na po ang puwedeng pakainin roon. That is why we have the righteous outrage over this evidence presented by Atty. Cabrera. That is, we have every justification to proceed with one Article and to have absolute faith on unexplained wealth as a singular Article [of impeachment] for this trial,” Ridon added.
(It is unthinkable that that could happen to an ordinary Filipino. That could have already fed three barangays.)
The House prosecution panel on Tuesday said there is no denial of due process for Duterte amid the prosecution’s sudden withdrawal of three out of four Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President because the defense was given a comprehensive time to question the prosecution witnesses.
Duterte however on Wednesday said the prosecution's withdrawal of three articles of impeachment on Tuesday is an admission that the allegations hurled against her lacked basis from the start.
"The withdrawal is an admission that the allegations lacked basis from the very beginning," Atty. Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., spokesperson for Duterte, said in a statement.
The three Articles of Impeachment withdrawn by the prosecution include: Article 1 on the misuse of P612 million of confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education (DepEd), Article 3 on bribery of DepEd officials during the Vice President’s tenure as Education Secretary, and Article 4 of grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and his family members.
The prosecutors were able to present evidence on Article 4, 1 and 2 before they decided to withdraw Articles 1, 4 and 3.
Ahead of the withdrawal of the three Articles, the prosecution submitted a manifestation before the Impeachment court last October 6 that it will withdraw the Article 3 charge.
With the Impeachment court accepting the prosecution’s motion to drop the three impeachment Articles, the Impeachment court also ruled that the defense will no longer need to present evidence to response to these three allegations since there are no more charges to respond to.
The defense is expected to present its evidence on November 9. —KG, GMA News