DAVAO CITY, Philippines—Duterte supporters and corruption watchdogs expect different outcomes from Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, but both agree the prosecutions’ withdrawal of three articles eliminates any chance of resolving the allegations against her.
House prosecutors surprised the court, the defense panel and the public on Oct. 13 when they withdrew Articles I, III and IV, alleging misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats.
The Prosecution left Article II, unexplained wealth, as the sole charge in the trial, citing confidence in the evidence. Prosecutors also said they were dropping the other articles to expedite proceedings that have stretched for more than three months since July 6.
The trial was suspended Oct.13 and will resume on Nov. 9, with the defense presenting its case on the unexplained wealth charge.
Duterte supporters want fairness
Duterte supporters interviewed by Davao Today said they wanted due process so that the vice president could answer the allegations.
“If justice is truly the goal, all allegations should be answered and thoroughly examined, with evidence presented and weighed fairly,” NK Lorema said in Cebuano. “Justice should not only be fair; the public must also see that it is being carried out fairly.”
Sanara Ledien and Seth Mikami agreed that the public needs to hear the defense’s side.
“It is important that the hearings continue so we can also hear and see the evidence from the vice president’s defense,” Ledian said.
“The defense needs to be allowed to answer because it has prepared for the case,” Mikami said. “In my view, the prosecution is rushing.”
Ombudsman case next?
But avid supporter Richie Rosialda dismissed the evidence against the vice president as hearsay.
“The withdrawal was never for accepting defeat. They will be sending the articles to the Ombudsman so that they will arrest her, as they cannot impeach VP from their made up evidence from gossip. So arresting the sitting vp is their only way to get rid of her and it is part of their A-Z plan,” Rosialda said.
Prosecutors argued that Duterte violated the Constitution when she failed to disclose bank account transactions and finances from the businesses of her husband lawyer Manases ‘Mans’ Carpio.
Confidential funds
For Elmer Jon Mupas, convener of Davao’s STOP (Stand in Opposition to Plunder) Corruption Alliance, the withdrawal risks leaving serious allegations against the vice president without a verdict from the Senate impeachment court.
“We believe the confidential funds allegations was a strong case of corruption, and the one that bears most directly on how public money is spent,” he said.
The prosecution presented evidence on the alleged misuse of confidential funds totaling P612 million. State auditors testified that the vice president’s liquidation showed purchases of office equipment and medicine — items not allowed under government budget guidelines. They also noted the reports failed to show accomplishments in intelligence gathering.
Testimonies from Duterte’s key staff showed the money trail ended when disbursement officers handed funds to the vice president’s security chiefs, former military officials.
“These funds are shielded from scrutiny by their very nature, which makes them open to fabricated liquidation reports and ghost beneficiaries,” Mupas said.
Lawyer Carlos Isagani Zarate, former Bayan Muna representative, criticized the withdrawal in an Oct. 13 Facebook post.
“The question remains — not because they have been resolved, but because the charge under which they were examined is being dropped,” Zarate wrote.
He pointed to questions surrounding the name “Mary Grace Piattos,” which became a focus of scrutiny during discussions of confidential fund liquidation.
Zarate said government institutions, including the Commission on Audit and the Office of the Ombudsman, should continue examining the transactions where warranted.
Accountability
Mupas called for scrutiny of confidential and intelligence funds across government offices.
“The issue of confidential funds does not apply to the vice president alone,” he said.
With the trial now focused on unexplained wealth, the confidential funds and grave threats charges will not receive a verdict from the impeachment court.
But Mupas said that regardless of the Senate court’s ruling, more must be done to address broader concerns about public accountability.
“Dropping an article does not erase the allegations,” Mupas said. “We urge that the investigation and trials continue through other avenues.”
“Real accountability will not come from the Senate alone,” he said. “It will take sustained pressure and collective action from citizens, the media, and civil society, along with genuine change to the corrupt system itself.”
A question of fairness
Davao-based Lawyer Arvin Dexter Lopoz acknowledged that withdrawing charges is not unusual in criminal proceedings.
Lopoz said the circumstances of the impeachment trial made the decision more complicated because prosecutors had already presented evidence on some of the allegations.
“There is now basis for the senators-judges to form their initial theory of the prosecution’s case. I believe it was ill-advised to forego with the two other articles where the prosecution’s evidence-in-chief had been concluded already,” he said.
Lopoz remained confident in the prosecution’s evidence on unexplained wealth, which he described as strong enough to warrant serious consideration by the Senate. (davaotoday.com)
