Senator Ping Lacson fired back at Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp after blaming the Senate majority for allowing the prosecution to drop three of the four articles of impeachment, allegedly wasting P500 million in taxpayers’ money.
Lacson challenged Duterte’s spokesperson, Paolo Panelo Jr., to explain how he arrived at an estimate of P25 million in impeachment operating costs per day, which allegedly totaled P500 million in supposed squandered public funds over 20 trial days devoted to Articles 1 and 4.
Lacson said Panelo may have made an “honest mistake” and urged him to rectify his “obviously misleading” figures, noting that the P25 million in daily operations refers to the Senate’s—a legislative body—regular operating expenses, “not to the impeachment trial as misinterpreted.”
"As far as I know, the GAA 2025 budget for the impeachment trial, most of which has remained unspent (only roughly P2 million was disbursed for the judges’ robes and other items) from the original P27.5 million, is now being used under the 'continuing appropriations' provision in the General Appropriations Act," Lacson stressed.
In June, Lacson cited the same P25 million-per-day figure when sharply criticizing the short-lived stint of then-Senate president Alan Cayetano, who served only 28 days, claiming the period produced zero legislative output and wasted an estimated P700 million in public funds.
“The P25M per day clearly refers to the legislative functions of the Senate, not to the impeachment trial as misinterpreted, and the basis was the maintenance and other operating expenses and personnel services ( for one year which I computed on a per-day basis when the Cayetano-led boycott resulted in zero legislative output due to lack of quorum after his ouster as Senate President,” he added.
Panelo slammed that Senate majority for a “lack of outrage,” suggesting tolerance on the part of the prosecution.
Aside from resources, he argued that the time devoted to the impeachment proceedings could have been used for meaningful discussion and passage of key bills addressing the country’s pressing needs.
“Who is going to hold them accountable? A judge in a regular court would have at least given the prosecution a proper tongue-lashing for wasting its time if this happened there. So why the quiet?” Panelo lamented.
“Is it because convicting the Vice President earlier may reduce the damage to Senator-Judges seeking elective posts in 2028? The silence is deafening. Don't be too obvious,” he added.
Senator JV Ejercito, chair of the Senate finance committee, said they have already spent three months hearing the prosecution's evidence in the impeachment since it began on 6 July.
He argued that the time could have been used productively to finish budget hearings at the committee level, which have been derailed by the simultaneous impeachment proceedings.
Both Ejercito and Senator Bong Go believed that the defense should have been given equal opportunity to present its case and contest the allegations as part of due process.
“As one of the senator-judges, I want to see an equal or fair fight. That means if the other side has already thrown a punch, the other side should also be given a fair chance to fight back,” Go said in an ambush interview.
Dropped Articles 1, 3, and 4 center on the alleged misuse of confidential funds in the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, “bribery” in the DepEd, and “grave threats” to the life of President Marcos Jr., respectively.
Articles 1 and 4 were dropped without prejudice, which means they cannot be revived, refiled, or used again as grounds to impeach Duterte during the present 20th Congress. This does not, however, grant immunity from regular criminal courts or other administrative proceedings.
Because no evidence or witnesses have been presented for Article 3, it is withdrawn without prejudice, though it is still strictly barred from revival in the current trial.
As a result, only Article 2 will be submitted to the senator-judges for a verdict, tentatively set for November.