MANILA— The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday accepted the prosecution’s move to withdraw three of the four impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte, with Articles I and IV deemed withdrawn with prejudice and Article III withdrawn without prejudice.

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero announced the court’s decision, allowing the prosecution to focus on Article II, which involves allegations of unexplained wealth.

“The court accepts and confirms the prosecution’s manifestation — Articles 1, 3 and 4 from this point forward are deemed withdrawn,” Escudero said.

He reminded the prosecution that withdrawing the articles with prejudice carries legal consequences, including barring their revival, refiling, reprosecution or retransmission against Duterte during the same term.

“The effect of a withdrawal with prejudice means that Articles 1 and 4 may not be revived, refiled, re-prosecuted, and transmitted anew against the respondent during the same term…”

Escudero clarified that Article III, which concerns alleged bribery, was withdrawn without prejudice because the prosecution did not present or deduce evidence under the article. Its withdrawal applies only to the current trial.

The decision followed objections from lead defense counsel Sheila Sison, who argued that allowing the prosecution to withdraw articles after presenting evidence would undermine Duterte’s opportunity to rebut the allegations.

“The prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard while the respondent would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted… This is not fairness.

That prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent.

The authority to streamline or to achieve speed in a trial is not the authority to diminish due process or to altogether disregard fundamental rules of fairness. And the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly,” Sison said.

She said the prosecution had spent 38 days presenting witnesses and evidence before deciding to withdraw the articles, adding that the defense respected the prosecution’s decision but questioned its implications for due process.

“It now has given formal notice that the prosecution, after 38 days and expenditure of government resources, presenting all these witnesses and so called evidence, and spending all our time coming to court, is now formally withdrawing two of those articles for which they had presented evidence, and we respect the decision.

The court has already heard the prosecution’s alleged evidence and the interpretations it laid on them, and the public has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly… The accusations have already entered the consciousness of those who must ultimately render judgment,” Sison said.