CAGAYAN de Oro City— Vice President Sara Duterte will face only one of four impeachment articles, but the withdrawal of the other three has left her defense questioning how she can answer allegations already presented before the Senate impeachment court.
The dispute goes beyond whether the trial can be completed faster.
It raises a question for the public: Should allegations aired during an impeachment trial be left without a full courtroom response after prosecutors decide not to pursue them?
On Tuesday, October 13, the Senate impeachment court allowed the House prosecution panel to withdraw Articles I, III and IV, leaving Article II on alleged unexplained wealth, incomplete asset declarations and continued business interests as the sole article to be decided.
Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said the prosecution believed the evidence on unexplained wealth was sufficient to warrant Duterte’s removal from office.
She also cited the need to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings and allow the Senate to attend to other legislative work, including deliberations on the proposed 2027 national budget.
The decision drew objections from Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, who questioned the need to rush the proceedings when the Constitution does not set a deadline for completing an impeachment trial.
Cayetano raised concerns about the time and resources already spent on the case and the need to give both sides a fair opportunity to present their arguments before the Senate reaches a judgment.
Duterte’s lead defense counsel, Atty. Sheila Sison, also challenged the move, saying the prosecution had been allowed to present its allegations and evidence, while the withdrawal could prevent the defense from answering them before the same court.
Sison argued that the defense should not be deprived of the opportunity to rebut allegations that had already been aired publicly.
She described the arrangement as unfair because the defense would no longer be required—or permitted under the court’s ruling—to present evidence against the withdrawn articles in the same manner as it would for the remaining charge.
Legal scholar Dean Jemmy Gatdula, dean of the Institute of Law at the University of Asia and the Pacific, likewise argued that withdrawing charges after presenting accusations could raise serious due-process concerns.
Gatdula said the defense should be allowed to challenge the allegations and seek appropriate legal remedies.
Among the options he proposed were exploring civil, administrative or anti-graft complaints against those responsible, submitting an offer of proof or memorandum to the official congressional record detailing evidence the defense would have presented, and seeking a formal judgment on the merits.
These are Gatdula’s proposed legal remedies, not rulings that the defense is automatically entitled to them.
Whether any such action is legally available would depend on the applicable rules, evidence and decisions of the proper court or authority.
The Senate impeachment court, presided over by Sen. Francis Escudero, accepted the withdrawal and lifted the sub judice restriction on public discussion of the three articles.
This allows the prosecution, Duterte, their lawyers and witnesses to address the withdrawn allegations publicly, subject to existing confidentiality, privacy and other protective rules.
But the ability to respond publicly is different from presenting evidence and having it tested before the impeachment court.
The withdrawal also does not amount to a formal acquittal on all four articles.
The Senate will still decide whether the remaining article warrants conviction and removal from office.
The court’s order also distinguishes the legal effect of the withdrawn articles, with the bribery article treated differently because the prosecution had not presented evidence on it.
For the prosecution, the remaining evidence is enough to pursue the case.
For the defense, the concern is that allegations already presented may remain in public discussion without being tested through the same trial process.
The public deserves clear answers on why three articles were withdrawn, how the court will protect the defense’s right to respond, and what safeguards will ensure that the remaining proceedings are fair.
An impeachment trial carries consequences beyond the officials directly involved.
It uses public resources and tests the credibility of the country’s constitutional process.
The measure of a credible trial is not simply how quickly it ends. It is whether the evidence is properly examined, both sides are treated fairly and the Senate explains the basis for its final judgment.
