Impeachment Against VP Duterte Collapses: Public Funds Wasted As Charges Withdrawn

Impeachment Against VP Duterte Collapses: Public Funds Wasted As Charges Withdrawn

By TheNATIONWEEK.com News Desk – October 17, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte have taken a dramatic turn, with the House prosecution counsel abruptly withdrawing three of the four Articles of Impeachment. This sudden retreat, following months of televised hearings and public accusations, has ignited a fierce debate among legal experts, who cite serious due process violations and raise the specter of potential graft liability for the prosecution.

What began as an aggressive, high-profile effort to remove the Vice President, characterized by sweeping allegations and promises of compelling evidence, has now been largely abandoned. The stated reasons for withdrawal – “litigation strategy” and “judicial expediency” – are met with skepticism, particularly given the extensive public platform previously afforded to the accusations.

“The accusations received the full glare of publicity. The rebuttal is denied the same judicial platform. That is a deeply troubling imbalance,” commented Atty. Esraelito Torreon, Dean of the College of Law at José María College Foundation.

The withdrawal, while not an acquittal, prompts a critical question: If the prosecution possessed confidence in its case, why abandon 75% of it after weeks of hearings and significant public expenditure? The single remaining Article II proceeds, yet the sudden capitulation casts a long shadow over the entire process. Most alarmingly, the impeachment court has ruled that the defense is barred from presenting rebuttals to the withdrawn charges, creating a profound imbalance where accusations were publicly broadcast, but a formal judicial response is denied.

Due Process Subverted

“The withdrawal of charges is not a clever litigation technique by the Prosecution Panel. It is actually an unjust ploy to deprive a party of the opportunity to defend oneself from charges previously made. It is a violation of due process and equal protection,” asserts Dean Jemy Gatdula, a constitutional law expert and Vice Chairman of the Operations Committee at the UA&P School of Social Sciences, Law, and Governance.

Dean Gatdula outlines three distinct remedies the Defense Panel should pursue:

• Civil, Administrative, or Anti-Graft Actions: File separate cases for malicious prosecution or damages against responsible parties.

• Offer of Proof: Submit a detailed “Offer of Proof” into official congressional records, outlining the evidence the defense would have presented.

• Formal Judgment on Merits: Demand a formal judgment, arguing that the prosecution’s sudden retreat itself demonstrates insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

The principle is unequivocal: one cannot launch public accusations from a judicial forum and then deny the accused the right to respond within that same forum. This constitutes a one-sided spectacle, undermining the very essence of justice.

Public Funds And Potential Graft Liability

Beyond due process, the substantial public resources consumed by the largely abandoned proceedings raise a second critical concern. Millions were spent on hearings, personnel, travel, contracted services, and a high-visibility public relations campaign built on claims of overwhelming evidence that ultimately failed to materialize.

Anthony Ludalvi A. Vista, a former prosecutor, meticulously examines whether this expenditure may satisfy the elements of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act):

• Public Officers: Members of the House serving as impeachment prosecutors and officials approving expenditures qualify. Individual responsibility for specific decisions resulting in financial loss must be identified.

• Official Capacity: Preparing articles, directing staff, and approving budgets are official functions.

• Manifest Partiality, Evident Bad Faith, or Gross Inexcusable Negligence: If evidence establishes charges were fabricated or knowingly pursued solely for political removal, it would satisfy the bad faith standard. Deliberately presenting weak or false allegations demonstrates dishonest purpose and abuse of authority. The withdrawal itself, viewed alongside the weakness of the abandoned articles, may support such a finding.

• Undue Injury to Government: Public funds wasted on baseless allegations constitute measurable financial injury, including documented costs for travel, supplies, and services. The Supreme Court, in Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, requires such injury to be specific, quantified, and proven with verifiable records.

Crucially, the withdrawal of charges does not extinguish potential liability. The Ombudsman retains independent authority to investigate and prosecute, regardless of political shifts. With a 20-year prescriptive period under RA 10910, ample time remains to scrutinize records and determine if public funds were misused. While legislative immunity protects speech and debate within Congress, it does not automatically shield every action or expenditure from external scrutiny. A properly supported complaint can be filed at any time.

Irreversible Damage

“You cannot publicly prosecute someone through accusation, privately retreat through strategy, and then invoke expediency to escape accountability,” states Dean Torreon.

The impeachment process is designed for accountability, not as a stage for discardable political accusations. When charges are presented publicly and then abandoned without the accused ever being heard in formal reply, the damage to reputation is real and, in many respects, irreversible. No amount of procedural maneuvering can fully restore a reputation systematically dismantled before millions of Filipinos.

Legal experts are unanimous: fundamental fairness demands that the defense be heard, public resources must be rigorously accounted for, and the integrity of the constitutional process must never be subordinated to political convenience. The “fishing expedition” may have concluded, but the profound questions it has raised regarding due process, equitable justice, and the responsible stewardship of public funds demand clear, credible, and comprehensive answers.

.

*             *             *

Your support fuels our fearless journalism.

To advertise with us, please contact us today at: nationweek@yahoo.com.

You can also make a donation via GCash at: +639267015155.