THE House prosecution said on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, that it would no longer pursue three of the four Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte.
House lead prosecutor Representative Gerville Luistro made the announcement during her manifestation before the impeachment court on Day 38 of the impeachment trial.
She expressed confidence that Article II of the impeachment case, which covers the alleged unexplained wealth and irregularities in Duterte’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), is strong enough to stand.
The three other articles of impeachment against Duterte cover the threats she made against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta Marcos and former House speaker Martin Romualdez (Article IV); the alleged misuse of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education during her time as its secretary (Article I); and bribery and procurement irregularities (Article III).
For Article IV, the prosecution presented three witnesses, while it presented 11 each for Articles I and II.
The prosecution earlier dropped Article II of the impeachment case.
Luistro said around 32 witnesses would no longer be called to the witness stand, saving time and government resources.
“By focusing on one article, the matters requiring the impeachment court's consideration are correspondingly narrowed with practical benefits for the Senate, the respondent, and even the public,” Luistro said.
“Why one article is enough? The prosecution believes it has presented sufficient evidence for Article 2 to stand on its own. All in po tayo dito. We believe that evidence is substantial and compelling, and warrants the respondent's removal from office for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,” she added.
In response, lead defense counsel Shiela Sison pushed back against the prosecution’s decision, saying it could not withdraw accusations after presenting evidence and then dictate how the defense should respond to the allegations.
“The accusations have already entered the consciousness of those who must ultimately render judgment. In other words, the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard while the respondent would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted, and we feel and we believe that this is not fairness and it is not in keeping with the guarantees of due process because the right to be heard is not merely satisfied by allowing the respondent some room to present evidence on her behalf,” she said.
Sison said the issue was significant because the prosecution had already spent 38 days and used government resources to present witnesses and evidence on the three articles it now intended to abandon.
In response, Luistro said the prosecution did not intend to waste government resources or cause unfairness or injustice to the respondent.
She said there were many platforms the respondent could consider to share the evidence they had in relation to the allegations against her.
Sison called the suggestion “ridiculous” after the damage to the Vice President’s reputation.
“Matapos nilang sirain ang Vice Presidente sa harap ng publiko ay ngayon ang sasabihin ay tutulungan ang taong bayan para mamadali ang proseso,” Sison said.
(After they damaged the Vice President’s reputation in public, they now claim that they want to help the people by speeding up the process.)
“I would even go as far as to say that the withdrawal should already be one of the reasons why the entire articles of impeachment should be dismissed,” she added. (TPM/SunStar Philippines)