1 hour ago
4
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
Cristina Chi - Philstar.com
September 8, 2026 | 1:18pm
MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution ended its presentation of evidence on the confidential funds article Tuesday, September 8, by dropping its 15 remaining witnesses and signaling it intends to call Vice President Sara Duterte to the stand before the whole trial wraps up.
With no witnesses to hear, the impeachment court today set a 15-day deadline for the defense to answer the prosecution's 104 requests for admission for Article II on unexplained wealth, and scheduled a September ruling to settle how many votes are needed to convict.
Here are the three highlights from today's proceedings.
1. Prosecution to call Duterte, but not yet
Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan told the court the panel is forgoing the three witnesses subpoenaed for the day and all 15 who remain on its list for Article I, which accuses Duterte of the misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds.
The prosecution had listed 27 witnesses for Article I in its pre-trial brief, presented 10 in court and stipulated on two more.
It's the prosecution's belief that they have already established their case with the 12 witnesses presented and thousands of documents shown to the court through them.
The prosecution said that, with the 15 witnesses skipped, it is turning its eyes to eventually compelling Duterte to show up in court.
"All of these pawns and castles and horses and bishops point to only one person, and that accountable person is the vice president. And that is why, in lieu of presenting 15 other witnesses, we will be presenting [Duterte] herself,” Kapunan said.
Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison however argued the Constitution bars compelling Duterte to testify.
She said the defense will file a written comment once a formal motion to subpoena her is filed.
Presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero noted that then-Chief Justice Renato Corona took the stand in 2012 and said nothing prevents Duterte from choosing to appear; Sison pointed out that Corona testified voluntarily.
Escudero also directed both panels not to rest on Article I, keeping it open while the court decides whether to summon Cols. Raymund Lachica and Dennis Nolasco on its own.
2. Defense gets 15 days to answer 104 requests for admission
Prosecutor Chel Diokno, who is in charge of Article II on unexplained wealth, told the court the panel served the defense with 104 requests for admission Monday morning under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.
The requests cover Duterte's bank accounts and records, which Diokno argued the vice president either knows firsthand or can verify against her own files or with the banks.
Anything admitted no longer needs to be proved through testimony, and the rule deems matters admitted if the respondent files no sworn answer in time.
Diokno said the mechanism could allow the prosecution to do away with at least 15 witnesses — further shortening proceedings — and distinguished it from stipulations, which are binding only when both sides agree.
Defense counsel Michael Poa asked for 15 days to respond rather than the seven the prosecution proposed. Escudero sided with the defense and granted them 15 days. This is non-extendable, and Escudero warned that an unreasonable blanket denial would be taken note of by the court.
The trial will not pause during that period.
In preparation for Article II, Escudero canceled the trial for tomorrow so both panels can mark exhibits.
Diokno said more than 1,800 bank and insurance records obtained under subpoena still need marking.
Poa had asked for two weeks to study the documents before the trial takes up Article II, offering to give up an equal number of days from the defense presentation. Escudero denied the request, saying the constraint is the court's calendar rather than any suspicion of delay.
He ordered the prosecution to submit its witness list under the five-day notice rule and said trial proceeds Monday.
3. Court to settle the voting threshold on September 23
Sen. Erwin Tulfo moved that the court decide who counts toward the two-thirds vote needed to convict, given that four senators are outside the chamber's coercive power at the moment.
Sen. Loren Legarda has been on medical leave since early August and remains abroad.
Sen. Bato dela Rosa, wanted by an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, has not shown up to the Senate since May.
Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and Sen. Rodante Marcoleta are currently detained after they were arrested on non-bailable plunder charges.
Estrada has been charged with graft and plunder over his alleged role in siphoning funds from anomalous flood control works, while Marcoleta is facing a plunder case over his alleged failure to declare P75 million in campaign donations during his 2025 Senate run.
If the base stays at 24, conviction requires 16 votes regardless of how many senators can vote. Should nine or more be unable to participate, Tulfo said, the remaining 15 could not reach that number even if all voted to convict, producing an acquittal by default.
He said Escudero's day-one ruling on the vote threshold used total membership, while the Senate has applied Avelino v. Cuenco, which counts only members within its reach.
"I'm not seeking to lower the requirement. My question now is very basic. When we refer to all members, who exactly are we counting? I fear that if we interpret the provisions literally, we might not do so to the point of absurdity, frustrating the mandate of the Constitution to exact accountability from public officials," Tulfo said.
Escudero treated Tulfo's motion as an appeal of his ruling and set a process. To help settle any debate, the court will hear from amici curiae (friends of the court) on September 16. It will then take oral arguments from both defense and prosecution on September 23, with 15 minutes each and a vote the same day.
An amicus curiae is a legal expert whom the court can ask to provide insights or specialized opinions on complex issues in law.
