Should Vice President (VP) Sara Duterte and her defense panel feel relieved following the withdrawal of three of the four Articles of Impeachment against her? I don’t think so. In fact, could the House prosecution panel have gained the upper hand through a tactical maneuver that apparently caught the defense by surprise?
On Oct. 13, 2026, during the impeachment trial of VP Duterte, the House prosecution panel, led by Rep. Gerville Luistro, moved to withdraw Article I, involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds; Article III, bribery; and Article IV, death threats. The prosecution retained Article II, involving allegations of unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets. Luistro explained that by concentrating on a single article, the matters requiring the impeachment court’s consideration would be considerably narrowed, bringing practical benefits to the Senate, the respondent and even the public. Presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero subsequently issued a ruling accepting the prosecution’s withdrawal of the three articles.
But was this really a victory for the defense? Duterte’s lawyers described the prosecution’s move as “completely unfair,” pointing out that evidence and witnesses had already been presented on two of the withdrawn charges, exposing the vice president to potentially damaging allegations before the public. In explaining the prosecution’s position, Luistro exuded confidence that the evidence supporting the remaining article was substantial enough to warrant Duterte’s removal from office for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.
Former presidential legal counsel Salvador “Sal” Panelo, in his column, described the withdrawal as an unmistakable and shameful swindling of both the people and the vice president. Panelo, who served as counsel to former President Rodrigo Duterte, argued that the defense had effectively been deprived of the opportunity to rebut the evidence already introduced by the prosecution concerning Articles I and IV. The prosecution’s evidence was heard and watched by those inside the impeachment court, by viewers following the proceedings from their homes and by countless others through livestreaming and media coverage. The allegations had already reached the court of public opinion, but the defense may no longer have the opportunity to challenge and dismantle them fully in the impeachment proceedings.
Looking at the situation from this perspective, the prosecution appears to have outsmarted the defense. In Tagalog, naisahan.
Nevertheless, Luistro has a valid point in arguing that concentrating on one article would considerably narrow the issues before the impeachment court. Instead of devoting time to hearing and resolving all four articles, the Senate could expedite the proceedings and attend to other equally important legislative matters. The prosecution would also no longer have to carry the burden of sustaining three separate articles or rebutting the defense’s evidence relating to those withdrawn charges.
The remaining article alleges that Duterte possessed unexplained wealth that she failed to disclose in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and that she and her husband had prohibited business interests. To support these allegations, prosecutors have presented anti-money laundering and tax officials, as well as representatives from banking and insurance institutions. Whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant conviction remains for the senator-judges to determine.
But the allegations have already been publicly aired and their withdrawal does not necessarily erase them from public perception. This precisely puts the defense in a difficult position. While the vice president may have been spared the continued prosecution of three articles, she could remain burdened by allegations she may no longer have the opportunity to fully refute before the impeachment court.
On the other hand, the impeachment court had earlier ruled that only senator-judges capable of participating in the trial would be counted in determining the two-thirds vote required for conviction. Under the reported composition, this would reduce the required votes from 16 to 14. If Duterte is eventually convicted and disqualified from holding public office, her presidential ambitions for 2028 could be derailed. It may be recalled that before the impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate, Duterte had already announced her intention to seek the presidency in the May 2028 elections. Her critics interpreted this as a political strategy intended to influence the senator-judges.
But what does the House prosecution panel really have up its sleeve following the withdrawal of the three articles? Could the allegations involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery and death threats eventually find their way to the Office of the Ombudsman?
Recall that retired Supreme Court associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, testified as amicus curiae that the failure to secure the required votes for conviction in an impeachment trial would not necessarily shield the respondent from possible prosecution before the appropriate courts, including the Sandiganbayan, where jurisdiction is established. Indeed, impeachment and criminal prosecution are distinct proceedings. The withdrawal of an impeachment article does not, by itself, extinguish whatever criminal liability may be established under existing laws.
Could this be part of the prosecution’s broader strategy? Has the House prosecution panel thought of referring the allegations underlying the withdrawn articles to the Ombudsman for investigation and possible prosecution? Or was the withdrawal simply a calculated decision to concentrate its resources on the article it believes offers the strongest chance of conviction?
For now, only the prosecution knows. But one thing is increasingly clear: the withdrawal of three impeachment articles does not necessarily mean that Vice President Duterte has emerged from the proceedings in a stronger position. The defense may have three fewer charges to confront, but the prosecution has only one battle left to win.
“The question is no longer merely who has fewer charges to defend, but who has the stronger case to win.”