By Francessca S. Abalos
THE SENATE impeachment court on Tuesday allowed House of Representatives prosecutors to withdraw three of the four impeachment charges against Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio, leaving allegations of unexplained wealth as the sole basis for a possible conviction.
The ruling followed 38 days of evidence and witness presentations, with prosecutors dropping charges involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.
“Articles I, III, and IV shall not be submitted for a vote or verdict by this court anymore, as there is no longer any charge under [them] for adjudication in this trial,” Presiding Officer and Senator-Judge Francis G. Escudero said in his ruling.
Lead House prosecutor Gerville R. Luistro said the evidence supporting Article II, which covers unexplained wealth, alleged violations of rules on statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and prohibited business interests, was sufficient to convict Ms. Duterte.
The prosecution withdrew Article I on the alleged misuse of confidential funds, Article III on alleged bribery and Article IV on grave threats against Mr. Marcos.
Halsey A. Juliano, a political science professor at the Ateneo de Manila University, said the prosecution’s decision to withdraw Articles I, III and IV would let it focus on allegations it thinks are supported by stronger evidence, while shaping public opinion about the Vice-President.
“Right now, the biggest Achilles’ heel of the Dutertes is their image as being accessible and close to the masses,” he said via Facebook Messenger. “If [the Dutertes are found to] have basically abandoned that… what is the point of sticking with them?”
He said the Duterte family had portrayed the impeachment proceedings as political persecution and questioned the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. However, some Duterte supporters want the allegations examined in court so they can be disproved, he added.
Mr. Juliano said the decision to focus on unexplained wealth could challenge the family’s image among supporters, particularly if the prosecution establishes that their financial dealings are inconsistent with their populist appeal.
Eric Daniel C. de Torres, a political science professor at the University of the East, said the impeachment proceedings had become a battle over public perception.
He warned that withdrawing three articles could allow Ms. Duterte to argue that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence, reinforcing her characterization of the impeachment case as a politically motivated “fishing expedition.”
Mr. de Torres said the proceedings had yet to significantly weaken the Vice-President’s public standing, citing recent opinion polls.
Ms. Duterte’s trust rating slipped by one percentage point to 56% in September from June, but she kept a substantial lead over Mr. Marcos’ 36% score despite facing impeachment proceedings and other legal cases.
Ms. Luistro on Oct. 10 said prosecutors intended to drop only the bribery charge.
“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,” she said.
‘GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS’
Mr. Escudero ruled that Articles I and IV were withdrawn with prejudice because prosecutors had already presented evidence and witnesses supporting those charges.
The ruling prevents the prosecution from refiling or pursuing the two articles against Ms. Duterte-Carpio in the same impeachment proceedings.
Article III was withdrawn without prejudice because prosecutors dropped the bribery charge before presenting evidence on it.
Mr. Escudero said the withdrawal of Articles I and IV would not prevent the allegations from being pursued through other legal proceedings.
“Impeachment is not a charge that may simply be filed, pursued through the presentation of evidence and thereafter withdrawn without the respondent’s consent,” he said. “It is a grave constitutional process that affects not only the respondent but also the stability of the government, the orderly conduct of public affairs, public confidence in constitutional institutions and the nation as a whole.”
Mr. Escudero said the House could not use impeachment proceedings to repeatedly file, withdraw and revive accusations against public officials at its discretion.
Lead defense counsel Sheila C. Sison objected to the prosecution’s motion and the court’s ruling, arguing that withdrawing the charges after evidence had been presented was unfair to the Vice-President.
She said the decision deprived Ms. Duterte of an opportunity to rebut the evidence presented against her under the withdrawn articles.
The defense is scheduled to begin presenting evidence on Nov. 9, following the impeachment court’s recess.
Mr. Escudero recalled a July 15 proposal by Senator-Judge Paolo Benigno A. Aquino IV to allow the prosecution and defense to present their evidence alternately for each impeachment article before proceeding to the next charge.
“This would’ve been completely avoided if you allowed that (alternate presentation), but the parties did not agree,” he said.
Ms. Luistro clarified that the prosecution had supported the proposal but the defense opposed it.
Mr. Escudero said Ms. Duterte could still submit statements concerning the withdrawn charges, but presenting further evidence on them would serve no purpose because the Senate would no longer vote on those articles.
The impeachment court will proceed with Article II, leaving senators to determine whether the prosecution has established sufficient grounds to convict the Vice-President over allegations concerning her wealth declarations and business interests.
Ms. Duterte is leading presidential preferences for the May 2028 election, according to Pulse Asia’s September 2026. The Vice-President received 50% of voter preference, despite the ongoing impeachment and legal charges against her.