MANILA, Philippines — Progressive groups that have pushed for Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment criticized the House prosecution on Wednesday, October 14, for dropping the charge over her alleged misuse of confidential funds, an issue that the Makabayan bloc was the first to raise in a Romualdez-led Congress in 2023.
The Senate impeachment court yesterday allowed prosecutors to withdraw three of their four articles of impeachment, including Article I, which accused Duterte of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds at the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education. Presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero ruled the charge withdrawn with prejudice, meaning the House cannot revive it against Duterte during her current term.
The prosecution now stands only on Article II, which accuses Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth.
'Absence of accountability'
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) president Renato Reyes Jr. rejected the prosecution’s argument that narrowing the case would speed up the trial.
“Our impatience is not with the length of the trial but with the repeated absence of accountability of our top officials,” Reyes said in a statement on Wednesday.
Reyes said groups that backed the impeachment wanted closure on the confidential funds issue, and that a “judgement should have been rendered on this long-standing corruption issue.”
He also cited what he called President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s flip-flopping on the first impeachment, selective prosecution in the flood control scandal, and the fight over the Senate leadership, which he tied to the trial.
Reyes said progressive groups had filed impeachment complaints against Duterte in 2024 and 2026, and one against Marcos over alleged budget insertion kickbacks and flood control corruption. He said Duterte would “most likely” be convicted this year, but that her removal would not vindicate the justice system while other officials, “Marcos Jr included,” escape accountability.
Former ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. France Castro, who questioned the OVP’s confidential fund spending during budget deliberations in 2023, said the evidence on the charge was clear.
“Malinaw ang mga ebidensya — milyun-milyong confidential funds na ginastos sa loob lamang ng ilang araw, walang maayos na liquidation, at mga pinakitang mga resibo ay hindi kapani-paniwala. Hindi pwedeng basta na lamang burahin ang isyu ng pananagutan,” Castro said in a statement. (The evidence is clear: millions in confidential funds spent in just a few days, no proper liquidation, and receipts that are not believable. The issue of accountability cannot simply be erased.)
In August 2023, the House appropriations committee ended its hearing on the OVP’s proposed 2024 budget right after Duterte’s presentation without subjecting her office's spending to scrutiny. The motion to end it came from then-Senior Deputy Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, the president’s son, who cited “parliamentary courtesy" to the vice president.
Castro and fellow Makabayan lawmakers Rep. Raoul Manuel (Kabataan) and Rep. Arlene Brosas (Gabriela) were the only House members who criticized the move at the time and stressed the need to press Duterte over her office's confidential spending. But they were outnumbered by the 21 committee members who moved to terminate the hearing after less than an hour.
On Wednesday, Castro raised: “Are they worried that this issue would boomerang to President Marcos? Tandaan natin: si Marcos mismo ang nagbigay ng confidential funds kay VP Duterte noong 2022,” she said. (Let us remember: Marcos himself gave the confidential funds to VP Duterte in 2022.)
The OVP received P125 million in confidential funds in 2022 through a transfer from the Office of the President.
Prosecution: One article is enough
Lead prosecutor Rep. Jinky Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District) told the court yesterday that the unexplained-wealth evidence was enough on its own to remove Duterte. She said narrowing the case would shorten the trial and benefit the Senate, the respondent and the public.
She said the panel still considers all four charges equally strong.
The prosecution’s final witness, forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera, testified that Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, had P817.87 million in undeclared assets and income from 2022 to 2025.
Escudero said prosecutors who drop charges after resting their case “must therefore accept the legal consequences.” The bribery charge (Article III) was dropped without prejudice because no evidence had been presented on it.
The court also ruled that the defense need not present evidence on the three dropped articles, and Escudero lifted the gag on public discussion of them.
Duterte camp: A waste of public funds
Duterte’s camp also objected to the withdrawal, with the vice president's spokesperson, lawyer Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., saying millions had been "wasted" after 20 trial days were spent on Articles I and IV, the grave threats charge.
“That is approximately P25 million in Senate operating cost per day, or P500 million of taxpayers’ money, consumed on charges that will never be voted on,” he said. Panelo claimed the total would exceed P1 billion once lawmakers’ salaries, lawyers, consultants, "content creators" and the House justice panel’s hearings were added. He did not say where his figures came from.
The P25 million is what the Senate spends each day on electricity, utilities and salaries, with or without a trial, according to Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, who cited the figure in June. On July 16, he explained that the trial incurred the Senate no additional cost because it is handled like a plenary session.
Panelo argued the withdrawal was “an admission that the allegations lacked basis from the very beginning.” He said it denied Duterte the chance to rebut the evidence and win “the vindication of the acquittal she deserves.”
He also asked whether the Senate majority had kept quiet because the votes to convict Duterte were “already locked in under the lower threshold.”
“The silence is deafening,” Panelo said. “Huwag naman kayong masyadong halata.” (Don’t make it so obvious.)
The defense did not oppose the withdrawal itself but objected to losing the chance to answer the evidence already presented. “[The prosecution] presented their evidence. The court allowed them time, gave them opportunity, gave them platform, but now since they withdrew, your vice president can no longer speak or defend herself from those allegations,” lead defense counsel Sheila Sison said.
Escudero stood by his ruling and said: "No useful adjudicative purpose will be served by receiving evidence directed solely against charges that have already been withdrawn.”
Conviction would remove Duterte from office and permanently bar her from public office. She has denied wrongdoing and calls the case politically motivated, saying it is meant to damage her ahead of the 2028 elections.
The trial resumes on November 9, when the defense begins presenting its evidence.