Duterte impeachment trial Day 39
[ANALYSIS] VP Sara at a crossroads: Quantum of evidence or quantum of lies?
The prosecution formally rested its case on Day 39, but surprised the public when it dropped a legal bombshell by withdrawing three of the four impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte. It dropped Articles I, III, and IV, covering alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats, respectively.
Acting on the withdrawal, presiding officer Chiz Escudero ruled that it would prohibit the defense from presenting evidence to counter the prosecution's claims about confidential funds and alleged grave threats, which the prosecution had extensively presented both inside and outside the trial.
Given the withdrawal, Escudero said the senator-judges will no longer vote on Articles I, III, and IV and thus there was no need for the defense to present its own witnesses to dispute the allegations.
It was only in consideration of time and public resources, in the “best interest of the court and of the public,” said lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro, explaining their move. It was not meant to say that their evidence on Articles I, III, and IV was not as strong as their evidence on Article II, covering alleged unexplained wealth, she added.
But their evidence on Article II was enough to convict Duterte and subsequently fire and forever ban her from public office, she emphasized.
Whatever the reason, it was a legal coup. It paved the way for the prosecution to castrate Duterte’s right to go to town and destroy the allegations on the three other articles.
Luistro cited the impeachment court's decision in the 2012 trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, where the prosecution dropped five out of eight impeachment articles. Corona was convicted on the complaint on SALN, having failed to declare his dollar accounts.
But in the Corona impeachment, the prosecution withdrew the five articles before presenting evidence on them. In the Duterte trial, the prosecution had publicly humiliated her before the withdrawal. Their team might not have presented all witnesses on the line, but they had beaten the VP black and blue during the presentation. The panel’s spokesmen had a field day explaining their allegations outside the court.
This was the gist of Sison’s manifestation when it objected to the court ruling, though while she criticized the prosecution’s bombshell, she refused to stop it, provided the defense would be given time to present its own witnesses.
But the defense didn’t get it. The court ruled otherwise.
Court lifts sub judice rule on Articles I, III, and IV
To compensate for the ruling, Escudero relaxed the rule on sub judice, allowing the defense (and the prosecution) to talk about their evidence and their arguments outside the court.
As it has always been since July 6, however, defense spokesman Michael Poa exercised restraint in talking about their case outside the court, contrary to his counterparts in the prosecution.
Sison’s criticisms of the withdrawal by the prosecution and the subsequent ruling caused a lengthy debate, even among senator-judges.
Alan Peter Cayetano and his sister Pia called the withdrawal unfair.
Kiko Pangilinan asked Escudero to reconsider. Kiko and Pia asked the defense to consult with Duterte about her position, and Escudero said he might reconsider, which was not exactly lacking in value. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Still, Sison found the idea of castrating the defense “unfair and unacceptable.” It would only have been fair if the prosecution would drop all the articles of impeachment altogether, she said—something that, of course, the prosecution was not willing to do. The world was not meant to be fair to all.
The court spent hours debating the withdrawal and the court decision that it overlooked the fact that the prosecution was resting its case on Article II, which covers allegations on three major points, namely, alleged unexplained wealth, questions on SALN, and engagement in private business.
The court will have to wait for a formal offer of evidence, the markings of all the documents, and all the jazz, until the trial resumes on Nov. 9.
In the interim, the Senate will focus on deliberating on the 2027 budget. Include the problems caused by the Super El Niño, the country’s economic woes, and the global security problem, said Alan.
Nobody talked about the many issues left by the prosecution’s final witness, lawyer-CPA Alex Cabrera.
The defense said Cabrera's testimony was based on presumptions and limited documentary evidence. Everything was based on his opinion, not on facts.
But prosecution lawyer Chel Diokno hailed him as the man who connected the dots for everything that the prosecution has been saying all along the last 38 days.
He allegedly uncovered what Duterte has long been hiding.
Summing it up, Diokno said: "Bottom line, kung malinis ang isang opisyal, dapat wala siyang tinatago."
Cabrera was the prosecution's crowning glory. Loopholes and all, Cabrera's testimony, according to Diokno, was not meant to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict Duterte, per impeachment rules.
It only needed “quantum of evidence” to remove her from public office, he said.
Quantum of evidence? Or the quantum of lies? In this world, nobody ever got everything he wanted. Still, the public can look forward to seeing the defense’s day in court just the same.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.
WATCH: Pixar Summer Fest adventure at Hong Kong Disneyland
August 10, 2026