MANILA — The House prosecution team said the list of witnesses and evidence submitted by Vice President Sara Duterte to the Senate impeachment court does not show proof of her sources of income or the legitimacy of recipients of confidential funds.

In a report, it said that House prosecution panel spokespersons Rep. Zia Adiong of Lanao del Sur’s 1st District and Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co made the statement in a press briefing on Thursday, citing Duterte’s pre-trial brief submitted to the impeachment court.

“Their pre-trial brief is voluminous, but it is less in substance. There is no substantive controverting evidence. It’s purely general denial and repetitive questioning of the process,” Adiong said.

He said key questions remain unanswered, including how confidential funds were used, alleged discrepancies in the Vice President’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), and claims involving alleged bribery during her tenure as Education secretary.

“But what the public wants to know is, how did she utilize the confidential funds? What is the explanation on cash and properties not reflected in her SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth)? What about the explanation about officials of the Department of Education (DepEd) who received bribes during her tenure as Education chief? These are the questions that I think not only the court deserves to know, but even the general public. But nothing of these is in the pre-trial brief,” he added.

Co said most of the witnesses listed by Duterte’s defense are the same individuals the prosecution intends to present.

She said the defense brief does not clearly explain how these witnesses will rebut the allegations against the Vice President.

“The pre-trial brief sets the tone on how the defense will structure its answers. So kung tunog lata na ang pre-trial brief (So if the pre-trial brief seems hollow), what more can we expect during the trial proper? Kasi kung sineseryoso ang proseso, dapat binibigay na ‘yung mga sagot na matagal nang hinihingi ng taong-bayan (If they are taking the process seriously, they should be giving the answers that the people have long wanted),” Co said.

“Wala pong pagdedetalye kung bakit po ini-introduce ‘yung evidence na ito, kung bakit ini-introduce ‘yung witness na ito,” she added.

She also cited a Philippine Statistics Authority (Philippine Statistics Authority) certification allegedly showing no record of a certain “Mary Grace Piattos,” questioning the defense’s ability to counter such evidence.

“How do you provide evidence to controvert or contradict ‘yung certification ng PSA (Philippine Statistics Authority) na sa records nila, walang Mary Grace Piattos, no other than ipakita ninyo kung sino siya?” she said.

Meanwhile, earlier House lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said allegations involving the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds will involve the most witnesses due to the volume of documentary evidence.

She cited findings from the Commission on Audit (Commission on Audit), which affirmed notices of disallowance on ₱73 million in confidential funds and another ₱375 million in disbursements by the Office of the Vice President.

“It is the confidential fund… Because of course we know that confidential fund is very voluminous and each piece of document needs to be identified by oral testimony of witnesses,” Luistro said.

“Pag maraming documents, marami din witnesses,” she added.

Luistro said the impeachment trial is expected to involve numerous witnesses due to the extensive documentary trail supporting the allegations.