Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team is weighing whether it can present witnesses to counter allegations involving confidential funds and grave threats that prosecutors have abandoned in her impeachment trial, arguing that the accusations could still shape how the Senate and the public view her case.
Defense lawyer Michael Poa said the team had yet to decide whether to pursue evidence addressing the withdrawn charges, as it consults Duterte and works out how to comply with the impeachment court’s ruling limiting the defense’s presentation to the remaining charge of unexplained wealth.
“We want to at least streamline the presentation, make sure whatever we present will still be relevant kahit na it might seem to be a rebuttal evidence sa confidential funds,” Poa said in a radio interview on Saturday.
"Sa atin... We need to tweak our strategy a bit now, although sa totoo lang, we would have wanted to still go on with our initial plans on how to present our evidence. But with the development, kailangan talaga natin tingnan," he added.
The Senate impeachment court on 13 October allowed prosecutors to withdraw three articles, leaving the allegation of unexplained wealth under Article II as the sole remaining charge against Duterte.
The withdrawn articles covered the alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats. The court also lifted the sub judice restrictions on the withdrawn charges, allowing the parties to discuss them publicly, but the defense still faces questions over whether it can present evidence on allegations that will no longer be adjudicated.
Poa said the defense would have to establish the relevance of any proposed evidence to the remaining proceedings, acknowledging that prosecutors could object if the material addressed only the withdrawn charges.
“Hindi lang yung basta maipasok natin dahil Article I siya na confidential funds,” he said.
He added that statements made in interviews or press conferences could not replace testimony from witnesses with direct knowledge of the allegations, particularly those who would need to be summoned to appear in court.
“For us, iba pa rin yung nasa korte ka talaga,” Poa said, adding that some potential witnesses would need to be summoned and could not simply be invited to speak at a press conference.
Alternating presentation
Poa acknowledged that Duterte’s defense team had opposed a proposal during pretrial proceedings to alternate the presentation of evidence between the prosecution and defense.
The arrangement, raised by the presiding officer and the impeachment court, required the agreement of both sides. The defense rejected it partly because it believed prosecutors should present their evidence first before the defense responds.
“Aminin ko na yung defense talaga yung hindi pumayag doon… one of the reasons na nabanggit ko noon is ’yung burden of proof… Kasi pagdating sa regular courts dapat prosecution muna talaga maglalatag ng ibang ng mga evidensya nila bago pa sumagot ang depensa,” he said.
But the defense lawyer disputed suggestions that the defense’s position had caused the current difficulty, saying there was no certainty that an alternating arrangement would have prevented prosecutors from withdrawing charges before the defense could respond.
He declined to speculate on the prosecution’s reasons for abandoning the three articles, saying the decision was its prerogative.
No decision to boycott trial
The defense lawyer also dismissed speculation that the defense might stop participating in the proceedings following setbacks, including the Senate’s ruling on the voting threshold and its approval of the prosecution’s withdrawal of the three articles.
He said no such decision had been discussed with Duterte, although any move to withdraw would depend on the vice president and require the defense to weigh the consequences.
“Wala namang napag-uusapan na ganyan between the client and ourselves,” he said.
“If we don't participate, it's as if we're waiving our opportunity to even present on Article II,” he said.
Poa likewise declined to speculate on whether prosecutors had withdrawn the articles because they already had enough votes to convict Duterte.
“I also don't want to speculate na kaya nag-withdraw yung prosecution dahil may boto na sila. We have to at least give them the benefit of the doubt,” he said.
He maintained that the defense would focus on presenting its evidence and persuading the senator-judges rather than assuming the outcome had already been decided.
The impeachment court is scheduled to resume proceedings on 9 November.