THE camp of Vice President Sara Duterte criticized members of the Senate majority for their alleged lack of concern over the withdrawal of three articles of impeachment, despite the time and resources already spent hearing two of them.
In a statement, Duterte spokesperson lawyer Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr. said 20 of the 39 trial days had been devoted to Articles I and IV, which cover the alleged misuse of confidential funds and grave threats, respectively.
Panelo estimated that the proceedings had consumed P500 million in public funds, based on the Senate’s reported daily operating cost of P25 million. However, no official records have established that the impeachment trial itself cost that amount. 
He said the estimated cost could reach P1 billion when salaries of lawmakers who served as prosecutors, spokespersons or guests, as well as expenses for the House of Representatives’ preliminary hearings on the allegations, were factored in.
Panelo also questioned the Senate majority’s “lack of outrage” over the resources allegedly spent on the proceedings, asking whether they didn’t regret the time that could have been devoted to addressing the country’s critical 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,” Panelo said.
Panelo also suggested that the prosecution’s move was politically motivated meant to disqualify a leading presidential candidate in 2028, secure a conviction under a lower threshold, avoid a prolonged trial that could alter the numbers, and limit political damage to senator-judges seeking elective posts in 2028.
“The silence is deafening,” he said.
Panelo described the withdrawal of the three articles as an admission by the prosecution that the allegations against Duterte lacked basis from the outset.
He also argued that the move denied the Vice President due process by depriving her of the opportunity to confront the allegations against her before the Senate impeachment court.
More importantly, he said, it deprived Duterte of the chance to be vindicated through an acquittal if the court had ruled solely on the evidence and the law.
On Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, House lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro announced that the prosecution would no longer pursue Articles I, III and IV, opting to rely solely on Article II, which concerns alleged unexplained wealth, inaccurate or incomplete declarations of assets and business interests that Duterte was constitutionally required to divest. 
Luistro said the prosecution believed the evidence presented under Article II was sufficient to establish culpable violations of the Constitution and warrant Duterte’s removal from office.
The Senate impeachment court, through presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, accepted the prosecution’s move.
Escudero clarified, however, that the ruling could still be challenged through an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. 
Escudero also ruled that the defense would no longer be required to present evidence against the allegations covered by the withdrawn articles before the impeachment court.
The prosecution said the defense could pursue other avenues to present its evidence. Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison, however, maintained that the prosecution could not dictate how the defense would present its case./ TPM