Bombshell

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took an unexpected turn when the prosecution delivered a bombshell this week. The defense was caught flat-footed when the prosecution withdrew three articles of the impeachment complaint, leaving only one for the impeachment court to decide.

Everyone — the defense, the public, and the impeachment court — got the shock of their lives when the prosecution detonated a legal bombshell. The prosecution told the impeachment court it was dropping three articles of impeachment, namely: Article I (misuse of confidential funds); Article III (bribery); and Article IV (grave threats and inciting to sedition). Left for the impeachment court to decide is Article II, which concerns unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets.

Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero approved the withdrawal of Articles I, III, and IV. He also ruled that Articles I and IV, for which the evidentiary presentation had been completed, were withdrawn with prejudice, barring their revival or refiling against Sara Duterte during the 20th Congress. In another ruling, no verdict will be rendered on the withdrawn articles of impeachment. The sub judice restrictions under Rule 18 for the three withdrawn articles were lifted, allowing all parties to discuss the allegations publicly. Restrictions remain on Article II.

The withdrawal of articles of impeachment is not new. In the Corona impeachment, the prosecution withdrew five of the eight articles of impeachment. However, there is a difference in the manner of withdrawal. In the Corona case, the articles were withdrawn before they were presented. In the current case, they were dropped after two articles had been completely tackled by the impeachment court.

Lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro explained that the prosecution believed its evidence on Article II was “substantial and compelling” to warrant Duterte’s removal for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. “In the prosecution’s assessment, concentrating on this article is the most judicious course, consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation.”

Except for the prosecution, everyone is perplexed by the decision to drop the three articles of the impeachment complaint against Sara Duterte. Are saving the impeachment court time and government resources the real motives for the withdrawal of the articles, as the prosecution spins its decision? The controversial withdrawal has sparked contentious debate and discussion. Is the prosecution impulsive? Did it miscalculate?

One possible explanation is that the prosecution is confident it has already secured a conviction under Article II. In the last two weeks, the impeachment court tackled whether Sara Duterte acquired ill-gotten wealth by examining her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs), bank accounts, and bank transactions. The deliberations yielded interesting results.

The most glaring is the nondeclaration of cash and assets in Sara Duterte’s SALNs. Nondisclosure of cash and assets in SALNs is a serious violation of the law. Former Supreme Court Chief Justices Renato Corona and Maria Lourdes Sereno were removed from their posts due to serious discrepancies in their SALNs. The former was removed via impeachment, while the latter was removed through the questionable quo warranto proceedings.

Findings by forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera reveal that Vice President Sara Duterte may have accumulated hidden or ill-gotten wealth. Cabrera’s testimony before the impeachment court shows that Sara Duterte’s unexplained wealth could reach PHP 1.5 billion, nearly double his initial estimate of PHP 817.87 million. This includes the PHP 475 million in confidential funds, transactions flagged by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), and those involving GenCorp Industries Inc.

The above information may have convinced the prosecution that conviction is inevitable on the strength of the evidence on Article II. Impeachment, however, is also a political process. The political affiliations of senator-judges influence their voting decisions. Does the prosecution’s decision to drop the three articles imply that it has secured enough votes to ensure conviction, given that the threshold has been lowered to 14 votes?

The administration would not risk resting its case on one article of impeachment unless the votes to convict were in the bag. An acquittal would be a defeat for the administration.

Convicting and removing Sara Duterte from office as soon as possible could be another reason behind the dropping of the three articles. Finishing all articles would drag the impeachment process into next year. 2027 is already an election year. Taking Sara Duterte out of the political scene by 2027 is sine qua non for political alignments to firm up for the 2028 presidential election. If Sara Duterte is still vice president in 2027, she remains in play for the presidency. Her removal and perpetual disqualification by the end of 2026 would remove a major contender from the 2028 election.

Resolving the impeachment process with a conviction before 2026 ends would allow the administration to prepare early for the 2028 election. It could firm up its candidate while crippling the Duterte bloc, which has been fixated on Sara Duterte’s candidacy for so long. Sara Duterte’s conviction would force the Duterte bloc back to the drawing board, with limited time to build up another presidential candidate. The Dutertes would be at a disadvantage.

The biggest casualties of the decision to drop the three articles of impeachment are accountability and transparency. The public will never know Mary Grace Piattos’ real identity, with Sara Duterte not held accountable for spending PHP 125 million in confidential funds in 11 days. Impeachment is not just about removing a high public official from office but also about making that official accountable and liable for misdeeds.

Transparency and accountability are once again eclipsed by politics.