APROSECUTION spokesperson in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment trial expects the proceedings to conclude by the end of November, while maintaining that removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding public office must be imposed together if the Senate Impeachment Court convicts her.
Prosecution spokesperson and adviser Ace Barbers said Duterte’s defense panel had initially sought 30 trial days to present its case before prosecutors withdrew three of the four impeachment articles. However, he understood that the defense requested only eight trial days for Article II, which accuses Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, of unexplained wealth.
‘They were asking for 30 trial days, but, as far as I know, they requested only eight trial days for Article II, which concerns unexplained wealth,’ Barbers said during the weekend.
‘So, if they follow that eight-day schedule, the presentation could be finished in two weeks at most,’ he added, noting that the Senate Impeachment Court had been holding hearings from Monday to Friday before the recess.
Barbers said, however, that the defense could still use the full 30 days it originally requested. After completing its presentation, the defense would formally offer its evidence, giving the prosecution an opportunity to comment on the exhibits.
The Senate Impeachment Court is scheduled to resume proceedings on November 9 following the Halloween break. Under the schedule announced by Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero, hearings will continue on selected dates through November 23, with no session on November 30, Bonifacio Day.
Barbers also maintained that the two principal penalties for conviction in an impeachment trial – removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding public office-cannot be imposed separately, countering speculation that Duterte could be removed but remain eligible to run in the 2028 elections.
‘Based on the Constitution, these penalties cannot be separated. The consequence of an impeachment process is that the respondent is penalized with removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding public office,’ he said.
He also rejected the possibility of a plea bargain in the impeachment proceedings, saying the arrangement, under which an accused pleads to a lesser offense in exchange for a reduced penalty, had no constitutional basis in the process.
The House prosecution previously withdrew the articles involving alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats, opting to focus on the remaining unexplained wealth charge. The withdrawal does not constitute a finding that the allegations were false, while separate investigations into the alleged offenses may continue.
Meanwhile, House prosecutor Manila Rep. Joel Chua criticized Duterte’s defense team for publicly questioning the withdrawal of the three articles without formally seeking reconsideration of the Impeachment Court’s ruling.
‘Isn’t that so? That is why I said their complaints seemed to be intended merely for social media,’ Chua said.
Chua recalled that during the October 13 hearing, Escudero asked defense lawyer Sheila Sison whether her statement opposing the implications of the withdrawal constituted a motion for reconsideration. The defense clarified that it was not objecting to the withdrawal itself and did not ask the court to treat its statement as a formal motion for reconsideration.
The impeachment court subsequently limited the defense’s evidence presentation to Article II and lifted sub judice restrictions on the withdrawn articles, allowing public discussion of the allegations subject to the court’s rules on evidence disclosure.
Chua argued that the prosecution’s decision narrowed the issues to be addressed in the trial, emphasizing that prosecutors needed only one conviction to secure Duterte’s conviction on impeachment.
‘We studied all four articles, but we only need a conviction on one to secure her conviction,’ he said.