The withdrawal of three impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte could prompt a legal challenge before the Supreme Court (SC), but declaring a mistrial would face legal hurdles, a law professor said.
San Beda University law professor Adonis Gabriel said the withdrawal did not automatically establish a denial of due process warranting a mistrial, since Duterte would no longer face judgment on the three charges.
“Ang epekto ng hindi pagtuloy o pag-urong ng three articles of impeachment ay acquitted yung VP sa three articles of impeachment,” Gabriel said in a radio interview.
The prosecution on 13 October withdrew three of the four impeachment articles against Duterte, leaving Article II, which concerns allegations of unexplained wealth, as the sole remaining charge before the Senate impeachment court.
Duterte’s defense had argued that withdrawing the charges after the prosecution presented evidence would deprive her of the opportunity to rebut the allegations before the senator-judges.
Gabriel said, however, that the withdrawal meant Duterte would no longer face conviction on those articles, making a mistrial difficult to justify on that basis alone.
“Sa mga ordinaryong kaso, victory ito sa defense counsel dahil tatlo sa apat na kaso na inilatag sa kanilang kliyente ay panalo na sila,” he said.
He noted that an impeachment trial is sui generis, or unique in nature, because the proceedings are intended not only for the senator-judges but also for the public.
Galman ruling sets precedent
Gabriel said the concept of a mistrial is not expressly recognized in the Philippine Rules of Court, unlike in the United States, where courts may declare one over serious irregularities, including violations of due process.
He cited Galman v. Sandiganbayan, the landmark case involving the assassination of former senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., in which the SC overturned the acquittal of the accused after finding that the proceedings had been manipulated under the administration of then-President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
“Hindi sinabi ng Sandiganbayan na mistrial o ng Supreme Court na mistrial yung nangyari, kung hindi sham trial,” Gabriel said.
The SC found that interference had undermined the independence of the proceedings. The case established a narrow exception to the general rule that an acquittal is final and protected against reversal under the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.
Gabriel said the circumstances surrounding Duterte’s impeachment trial were different.
“The resulta ng mistrial ay ang pag-ulit ng pagdinig. Uulitin lahat ang proseso,” he said, explaining that a mistrial would require proceedings to be repeated to remedy a serious procedural defect, rather than automatically terminate the case.
Public response
In accepting the prosecution’s withdrawal, the Senate impeachment court lifted the sub judice restrictions on the three articles, allowing Duterte, her lawyers, prosecutors and witnesses to publicly address the allegations.
Gabriel said this would give the vice president an opportunity to explain her side to the public, even though the senator-judges would no longer rule on the three charges.
“Unang-una, hindi na mako-convict yung vice president sa tatlong articles of impeachment,” the law professor said.
“At pangalawa, meron silang pagkakataon na walang rules, walang objection sa kabilang partido na mailatag nila yung kanilang mga depensa,” he added.
Gabriel added that Duterte could pursue appropriate legal action against witnesses who testified against her if there were sufficient grounds, including possible complaints for perjury or violations of confidentiality.
“Kung gusto ng vice-presidente na i-vindicate yung kanyang sarili, mag-ha-in siya ng karampatang kaso doon sa mga tumistigo laban sa kanya,” he said.
He added that the defense could also consider an administrative complaint against the Senate over alleged violations of its rights.
Further delays
Gabriel said the defense’s proposed witnesses could become another point of contention when the impeachment trial resumes on 9 November, as the court would have to determine whether their testimonies were relevant to the remaining charge.
“Sa aking tingin, ang plano ng depensa ay talagang pahabain yung pagdinig,” Gabriel said, warning that delays could exhaust public patience and bring the case closer to the 2028 elections.
He also raised the possibility of a defense walkout if the court rejected many of its proposed witnesses.
“So maaari rin gawin ito ng Depensa na mag-walkout sila dahil hindi pinayagan ng impeachment court na i-presenta nila yung karamihan sa kanilang testigo,” Gabriel said.
“Matatanda orly noong pagdinig ng impeachment trial ng dating presidente Estrada ang nag-walkout prosecution dahil hindi pinayagan na buksan ang envelope,” he added.
Gabriel urged both sides to allow the proceedings to continue and the senator-judges to decide the remaining charge.
The prosecution has said it is confident that its evidence on alleged unexplained wealth, undeclared assets and prohibited business interests is sufficient to secure Duterte’s conviction.
A conviction would remove Duterte from office and disqualify her from holding public office, potentially affecting her political plans ahead of the 2028 elections.