* The Senate impeachment court approved the prosecution’s request to drop three charges against Vice President Sara Duterte, leaving only Article II regarding unexplained wealth.
* Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro withdrew charges covering misuse of confidential funds, bribery, and death threats to reduce trial time, workload, and overall resources.
* Defense counsel Sheila Sison criticized the withdrawal, arguing that the move wasted court resources and deprived the defense panel of the chance to formally present its evidence.
Proceedings, the trial shortened. Burden of work by all – from lawyers to witnesses to senator-judges – lessened. Costs, energy reduced. Still why has the prosecution move exasperated the defense?
■ Senate may now devote more time to its legislative duties.
■ But how about the issue of due process? It could be useful. Convincingly or not, defense could argue for a “victimized” accused.
4 impeachment charges to sole lonesome one.
THE Senate impeachment court Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, approved the withdrawal of all but one of the charges against Vice President Sara Duterte.
That, after lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro “manifested” they’d no longer pursue Art. I (misuse of confidential funds), Art. III (bribery), and Art. IV (death threats). They’d hold on to only one, Art. II (unexplained wealth).
Move shouldn’t have surprised anymore.
The defense panel, led by Sheila Sison, criticized the move, alleging waste of the Senate court’s resources and forcing the evidence not to present its own evidence.
Really, was it surprised? It acted surprised, on top of being seemingly dismayed, yet not infuriated.
The defense, to be sure, would benefit from the dropping of the three charges. The prosecution is deprived of the complementary or support role of the three other charges. Like the enemy initially having four bullets in the gun, now having only one. The risk of being struck down by the trial is down 75 percent. The burden of disproving the accusations becomes less heavy.
Yet the defense criticism reacted as if the prosecution did something the adverse party shouldn’t or wouldn’t have done, something unexpected, even surprising. It did not. It shouldn’t have.
They must’ve known it was part of the enemy arsenal.
Being a prerogative, the right of prosecution to abandon some charges has been there all along. Was in fact done in a past impeachment trial of a Supreme Court chief justice. Off with his head and it was.
No longer unprecedented. A strategy and tool implicitly allowed if not expressly granted. And therefore anticipated and prepared for.
More probably than not, it was something the defense was ready for. And the response of acting surprised, even hurt, was the devised response.
Each side driven by compulsion
to win, employ tools at hand
It’s no punches pulled, off-with-the-gloves, sword-unsheathed thing.
But what must exasperate the defense is that instead of using more bullets or more guns, the prosecution is employing less.
Defense complaint: haven’t
answered, can’t answer back…
… with their evidence on the articles the prosecution dropped. The formal presentation of evidence, that is. Because defense had the chance to cross-examine witnesses and punch holes in it and, off court — in interviews and spins — they counter-attacked.
Not the same thing, no, but being spared the burden of defending the charges that would no longer be adjudicated is also not defending formally those charges at the trial. Cannot have your Leona or Dove Street cake and eat it too.
And the off-Senate tirades on anything at the trial or outside of it the opposite camp has sown in the public mind can still be hurled in the same forums, except at the Senate — and now no longer covered by the impeachment’s sub judice rule.
Yes, defense still holds the right of reply to the evidence presented on the removed articles, just no longer at the Senate trial.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT VS
VICE PRESIDENT SARA DUTERTE
1. ✖ Conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez
2.✖ Misuse and malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds
3.✖ Bribery and corruption in the Department of Education
4.✔ Unexplained wealth and
failure to disclose assets
More benefits than
disadvantages all around
Reduced work time for most everyone. Narrower disputed issue to adjudicate. Lesser lawyering on both sides. Lower expenses for the government, specifically the Senate, and indirectly the taxpayers.
Prosecution puts all eggs in one basket? Not metaphorically accurate but something like it. Watch for it.
Could come out that evidence would’ve little to do with it. All along, personal and party loyalty could be the determinant. Odd that much of the public does not see the mark of loyalty tattooed on the forehead of some senator-judges.