Impeachment Court Drops Three Articles Against Sara Duterte and Adjourns to November 9 With Only the Wealth Charge Left

What the court decided on Day 39

Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro opened Tuesday's session with a manifestation. "Four articles of impeachment were filed against the respondent Vice President. Today, the prosecution respectfully manifests that it will no longer pursue three of them. It will stand on one, and that is Article 2 on unexplained wealth," she said. The panel then rested its case after the defense finished cross examining forensic accountant Alexander Cabrera, its final witness.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said the prosecution could not withdraw articles on its own once they were before the court, and treated the manifestation as a motion. After an informal caucus of senator judges he ruled that Articles I, III and IV were withdrawn. Articles I and IV, on which evidence had already been presented, were withdrawn with prejudice, which means the House cannot refile substantially the same accusations against the Vice President during her current term and the 20th Congress. Article III, on which no witness had testified, was withdrawn without prejudice but cannot be revived in this trial.

"Impeachment is not a charge that may simply be filed, pursued through the presentation of evidence and thereafter withdrawn without the respondent's consent," Escudero said. He added that the bar applies only to impeachment and does not shield anyone from criminal, civil or administrative cases over the same conduct.

The court also lifted Rule 18, its sub judice rule, for the three withdrawn articles, so the parties and witnesses may now discuss them in public. The rule still covers Article II. Evidence filed under the dropped articles stays on record with restricted access, and the defense may use any of it that is relevant to the remaining charge.

What was dropped and what remains

Article I accused the Vice President of misusing and irregularly liquidating 500 million pesos in confidential funds at the Office of the Vice President and 112.5 million pesos at the Department of Education. Article III alleged bribery and procurement irregularities at the department. Article IV covered her threats against President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez, the same remarks for which she was arraigned on three counts of grave threats at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court on October 9.

Article II, the survivor, alleges unexplained wealth, violations of the rules on statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, and prohibited business interests. Luistro said the evidence on it was "substantial and compelling" and enough on its own to justify removal for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

She framed the withdrawal as a way to save time. Of 10 witnesses listed for the threats article the prosecution presented three. Of 27 for confidential funds it presented 11. Of 15 for unexplained wealth, 11 testified, not counting individual bank and insurance witnesses, and none of the five listed for bribery were called. About 32 listed witnesses will now never appear. As late as October 10 she had said only the bribery article would go.

The defense calls it completely unfair

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison did not object to the withdrawal itself but to its effect. For 38 trial days, she said, the prosecution had aired its accusations on all four articles, and the Vice President now loses the chance to rebut three of them before the court. "The prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested," she said, and later: "I would say it's completely unfair."

She disputed the prosecution's reliance on the 2012 Corona trial, where five of eight articles were dropped before any evidence was presented on them. When Luistro suggested the defense had "a lot of platforms" to share its own evidence with the public, Sison asked whether the Vice President was expected to answer on Facebook. "It is unbelievable. And to be honest, it is unacceptable," she said. She also argued that the withdrawal was one more reason to dismiss the whole case.

Senator judges Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano and Joel Villanueva said the defense should still get a chance to answer the dropped charges. "Who is saying that we have to finish this by November?" Alan Cayetano asked, noting that the Constitution sets no deadline. Escudero stood by the ruling but said the Vice President remained free to answer the withdrawn allegations outside the courtroom. He also recalled that a July 15 proposal by Senator Paolo Benigno Aquino IV to present evidence article by article, which the defense opposed, would have avoided the problem.

Reactions split along familiar lines. Duterte spokesperson Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr. called the withdrawal "an admission that the allegations lacked basis from the very beginning" and an injustice that denied her an acquittal. Palace press officer Claire Castro said Malacañang could not question the prosecution's legal strategy. The Vice President herself, speaking before the ruling, said the case was built to damage her ahead of 2028, that she would not resign, and that she saw the trial as a chance for the public to scrutinize her.

The November calendar

The court adjourned until Monday, November 9, when the defense opens on Article II. That first day will pause for the Senate's afternoon plenary session and resume afterward. Full day hearings follow on November 10, 11, 12, 13, 19 and 20 from 10 a.m., and a shorter session is set for November 23. November 30 is a holiday. Daily Tribune reported that the defense has 26 days from November 9 for its presentation and that a verdict is tentatively expected within the month.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said Thursday the Vice President is willing to testify but the team has not decided whether to call her. "If there's a trigger point, meaning aspects of the case that we feel may only be explained by the vice president herself or Attorney Mance Carpio himself, we will have to advise them," he said. He would not commit to a finishing date, saying the team had to reassess which witnesses to keep, add or drop now that three articles are gone.

Whatever the timeline, Poa said, the defense would have to explain the bank records and the forensic figures the prosecution presented.

How Mindanao reads the case

A Pulse Asia Ulat ng Bayan survey released on October 14, conducted face to face with 2,400 adults from September 17 to 24, found that 71 percent of Filipinos were aware of the unexplained wealth allegations. Nationally 29 percent believed them, 30 percent did not and 39 percent could not say. In Mindanao, 71 percent said the allegations were untrue. In Metro Manila the largest group, 41 percent, believed them. In the Visayas 39 percent were undecided and 33 percent said untrue.

The share calling the allegations untrue fell eight points nationwide since July, and awareness fell 10 points nationally and nine points in Mindanao. Fifty one percent wanted the Vice President to testify, 34 percent did not and 15 percent were undecided. Fifty three percent said they knew little about the trial, including 52 percent in Mindanao, even as 55 percent said they were interested in it.

The same pollster's September round put approval of the Vice President's work at 54 percent against 49 percent disapproval of the President's, and BusinessWorld cited her 50 percent share in Pulse Asia's presidential preference poll for May 2028. Two political scientists quoted by the paper read the narrowing differently. Hansley Juliano of Ateneo de Manila University said a case built on wealth could test the family's image of closeness to ordinary voters. Eric Daniel de Torres of the University of the East said dropping three articles lets the Vice President argue that the prosecution lacked evidence, which fits her description of the case as a fishing expedition.