Delon Porcalla - The Philippine Star
October 16, 2026 | 12:00am
(From L) Impeachment defense counsels Sheila Sison and Michael Poa, lead prosecutor Rep. Jinky Luistro, Sen. Pia Cayetano and presiding officer Chiz Escudero and private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan.
Senate SMU / Joseph Vidal
MANILA, Philippines — The decision to withdraw three of the four Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte was meant to expedite the proceedings, the prosecution panel of the House of Representatives said yesterday.
House legal spokesman Benjamin Tolosa Jr. explained that their objective was to make the impeachment process faster, and allow their counterparts to focus on one charge alone – the P1.5 billion unexplained wealth of the Vice President and her husband Manases Carpio.
“The ruling of the (impeachment) court is that the issues now will be confined to those relating to the unexplained wealth and the evidence that should be presented, should be confined to that,” he explained.
Refuting the dropped articles “will be a complete waste of time and resources of the court and everyone involved,” Tolosa maintained, as he rejected the proposed middle ground of allowing Duterte’s lawyers to answer evidence already presented under the abandoned charges.
The Senate impeachment court allowed prosecutors to withdraw the confidential funds, bribery and grave threats articles and limited the remaining defense presentation to Article II on alleged unexplained wealth.
Duterte’s lawyers have argued that fairness requires allowing them to counter evidence and testimony already heard publicly under the withdrawn articles even if the senator-judges will no longer vote on those charges.
Not a waste
Malacañang yesterday rejected criticism that the prosecution had wasted time and taxpayers’ money when it withdrew three articles of impeachment against Duterte.
“It cannot be claimed that there was wastage if there are facts, data that can provide explanation to the people,” Palace press officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said.
Asked about the defense team raising the possibility of a mistrial, Castro said such a scenario may be declared if the other party was not given any chance to present evidence.
“They were given ample time and opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the prosecution. Again, the defense team did not make any objection regarding the motion to withdraw the three articles of impeachment,” she added.
Duterte’s defense team may only need five to 10 trial days to present its evidence on the remaining Article II.
“Because there is only one article that needs to be tackled when we resume on Nov. 9, so likely at most, between five to 10 trial days,” Barbers said.
The defense had earlier prepared its original witness list and requested trial dates when all four impeachment articles remained part of the case.
Barbers added that prosecutors were originally opposed to withdrawing the three Articles of Impeachment, precisely because they have already presented evidence for the two charges – grave threats and confidential funds.
“They were initially not sold to the idea during the discussions. Although of course when they were asked about the issue if they were open to the idea, what was their opinion? Of course, at first, they didn’t agree with it,” Barbers recalled.
“Actually, many have given their opinion. That is what’s good…” he said. “So, it was taken up. And you know, there was voting. So, most of the people in that meeting agreed to focus on the unexplained wealth.”
While the Vice President is willing to stand as a witness in her impeachment case, it would depend on the “trigger point,” meaning if only she knows the answers and could give an explanation, defense panel spokesman Michael Poa told ANC, when asked if Duterte would stand as a witness in the impeachment trial. – Alexis Romero, Daphne Galvez, Evelyn Macairan