3 Charges Dropped. But Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Fight Isn’t Over.

The Sara Duterte impeachment case has narrowed to one remaining charge, but the vice president’s defense team is still questioning how the Senate Impeachment Court’s ruling affects its right to respond to evidence already presented.

On October 13, the Senate Impeachment Court allowed House prosecutors to withdraw Articles I, III, and IV of the impeachment complaint. Article II, which concerns alleged unexplained wealth, remains.

The ruling means the court will no longer submit three of the four Articles for a vote or verdict. But Duterte’s lawyers have raised concerns about testimony the senator-judges have already heard and whether the defense can still respond to it.

For now, the defense is not planning to challenge the ruling through a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. Spokesperson Atty. Michael Wesley T. Poa said the team was not considering that option.

What Is Certiorari, and Why Does It Matter?

Certiorari is a legal remedy that allows a party to ask a higher court to review a decision when a lower court or tribunal allegedly acts without or beyond its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

It is not an automatic appeal whenever a party disagrees with a ruling. The party seeking relief must establish the relevant legal grounds.

For now, Duterte’s camp has not committed to pursuing that route. Poa said the team would consider its position after consulting the vice president, while leaving open the possibility of other legal remedies.

READ: Bakit In-Impeach si VP Sara?

What Did the Court Rule in the Sara Duterte Impeachment Case?

Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero said Duterte would no longer need to present evidence-in-chief to defend against the three withdrawn Articles because they would not be submitted for a vote or verdict.

Escudero cited the 2012 impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona, during which prosecutors abandoned several Articles, and the defense was not required to answer those withdrawn charges.

“Because Articles 1, 3, and 4 will no longer be submitted for a vote or verdict, the respondent need not present evidence-in-chief to controvert or defend against those withdrawn Articles,” Escudero said.

Evidence already on the record may still be relevant to Article II, however. The remaining charge is therefore still central to the case.

The court also lifted the sub judice restriction under Rule 18 for the three withdrawn Articles. That allows both sides to discuss the allegations publicly, subject to any other applicable legal restrictions.

The Defense Still Has Questions

The Sara Duterte impeachment case now centers on one remaining charge, but the defense’s concerns extend to how the court handles testimony already presented during the proceedings.

Prosecutors have already presented witnesses on matters including confidential funds and alleged grave threats. Duterte’s lawyers are concerned about whether the defense can still offer rebuttal evidence to address testimony the senator-judges have heard, according to Manila Bulletin.

The defense has not simply disputed the prosecution’s ability to withdraw charges. Its main concern is how it can respond to testimony the prosecution has already presented.

“So, kami ang gagawin lang namin ngayon is once makausap namin ng aming kliyente, of course the respondent vice president, ipapaalam lang namin sa korte kung ano ang kanyang posisyon dito sa Rule 18 issue na ito,” Poa said. (What we will do now is, once we have spoken with our client, the respondent Vice President, we will simply inform the court of her position on this Rule 18 issue.)

Lead counsel Atty. Sheila Sison also argued that allowing prosecutors to determine which accusations the judges hear could prejudice the defense, the Inquirer reported. She warned that the ruling could lead to a mistrial.

What Happens Next in the Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial?

The immediate question is how the court will address the defense’s position on the withdrawn charges and the evidence already presented.

A Supreme Court petition is not the defense’s stated next move. Poa said the team was not considering certiorari at that point, though it has not ruled out other legal options.

The court must still address the remaining Article II through the impeachment proceedings. How it handles the defense’s concerns could shape the next stage of the trial.

For now, three charges are off the table. The legal questions surrounding the impeachment trial remain.