The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday, October 13, allowed House prosecutors to withdraw three of the four impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte, leaving allegations of unexplained wealth as the sole charge to be decided by senator-judges.
Despite the ruling, Duterte’s defense team said she should still be allowed to rebut allegations that were already presented publicly during the trial, including those involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
House lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said the prosecution would focus on Article II, which concerns alleged unexplained wealth, failure to fully disclose assets in statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), and failure to divest from prohibited business interests. Luistro argued that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction and that narrowing the case would help expedite proceedings.
The withdrawn articles were Article I, on the alleged misuse of confidential funds; Article III, on alleged bribery involving Department of Education officials; and Article IV, on alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the First Lady, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Defense Challenges the Withdrawal
Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero accepted the prosecution’s withdrawal, ruling that the three articles would no longer be put to a vote and that the defense would not be required to present evidence against them.
Articles I and IV were withdrawn with prejudice, meaning they cannot be revived as grounds for impeachment against Duterte during her current term. Article III, which prosecutors had not yet presented evidence on, was withdrawn without prejudice and may be pursued separately, subject to applicable rules.
The prosecution was given until October 23 to formally offer its evidence for Article II.
Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison objected to the ruling, arguing that allegations under Articles I and IV had already entered public consciousness after weeks of testimony and documentary evidence. She warned that preventing Duterte from rebutting those accusations in court could undermine the fairness of the proceedings.
Sison also questioned the use of government resources to present witnesses and evidence on charges that the prosecution later chose to withdraw.
Gag Rule Lifted on Withdrawn Articles
The court also lifted Rule XVIII, or the sub judice rule, which restricts public comments on matters pending before the impeachment court.
With the three articles no longer subject to adjudication, Duterte, her lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses may publicly discuss and respond to the allegations covered by them. Escudero said Duterte could now present her account through public discourse, even though she would no longer need to defend herself against those charges through evidence in court.
The restriction remains in force for Article II, the only article that will proceed to a decision.
Sison also raised concerns about lifting the restriction while the trial was ongoing, warning that public exchanges could affect the integrity of the proceedings.
Confidential Funds Still Figure in Wealth Allegations
Although the confidential funds article has been withdrawn, the issue may still intersect with the remaining unexplained wealth case.
During testimony on October 12, prosecution witness and forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera said his baseline estimate of P817.87 million in alleged unexplained wealth involving Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, did not include P475 million in confidential funds.
Cabrera said a broader computation, using less conservative assumptions and including additional questioned amounts, could raise the estimate to P1.5 billion. These figures remain allegations and estimates presented by a prosecution witness, not a final finding by the impeachment court.
The senator-judges will ultimately determine whether the evidence supports Article II. Duterte’s defense is scheduled to begin presenting its evidence on November 9.
