The prosecution rests its case

There’s one undeniable consequence of the prosecution’s dropping of three articles of impeachment and resting its case against Sara Duterte: it significantly shortens the proceedings.

This may be just as well, since not too many people returned to monitoring the trial, after tuning out from boredom in the first weeks.

The prosecution lost that critical period for grabbing public attention, in what should have been a gripping story of large-scale thievery imputed to the nation’s second highest official.

By the time the impeachment court got through those grueling first two weeks of debating the meaning of grave threats, everyone – except perhaps the lawyers who were getting paid for that kind of work – were confused, annoyed and bored out of their skulls.

We’ve heard everything and seen the VP’s meltdown video too many times. The only thing new in the Articles of Impeachment, which could have provided the shock and awe factor to hold public attention if it had been the first case tackled, was the revelation of the bank accounts maintained by the VP and her husband Manases Carpio.

The unexplained wealth was established, although still not completely explained. We learned about tinikling, the creative use of managers’ checks to dodge accountability rules. A financial analyst estimated the undisclosed wealth of the Duterte-Carpio couple at P1.5 billion.

Even the article on confidential funds seemed like a replay of two previous investigations conducted by the House of Representatives, when its then speaker Martin Romualdez was still hallucinating about being president in 2028 and was busy trying to eliminate his toughest rival the VP.

There are still issues left hanging on the matter of confidential funds. But from the start, with that long-drawn-out legal jousting over grave threats, prolonging the trial has been seen as a defense strategy. At that pace, the trial could have dragged on all the way to the 2028 elections, where the VP is the frontrunner for the presidential race.

Still, if only to dispel accusations of unfairness, the Senate may want to reconsider its approval of the prosecution’s move and instead allow the VP to present her case at least on the confidential funds.

Although Sara Duterte has maintained that her utilization of her secret funds, both as VP and as education secretary, was aboveboard, people are interested to hear the detailed rebuttal.

In particular, people want to know from the former head of her large security group, Col. Raymund Lachica, how he disbursed the P500 million (in installments of P125 million each) that was released to him by OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta, supposedly on orders of VP Sara. Lachica would know who Mary Grace Piattos is.

There’s no certainty, of course, that the defense intends to present Lachica as its witness. Also, Lachica, who is on floating status in the Philippine Army, can be an unreliable witness, whether for the defense or prosecution.

*      *      *

The talk is that across the political spectrum, the outcome of the impeachment trial is awaited before plans for 2028 are finalized.

Fielding candidates for president and VP in 2028 will depend on whether Sara Duterte will be a contender, or be permanently barred from public office following conviction by the impeachment court.

Duterte’s lawyers have lamented that the abrupt withdrawal of the three articles, with only the article on unexplained wealth retained, deprived them of the chance to present their case before the impeachment court, with accompanying evidence.

Lawyers have pointed out that the prosecution’s move is quite common in regular courts. A public official, for example, may be indicted for graft, plunder and malversation of public funds. Prosecutors can later withdraw two of the charges and focus only on one.

It’s an impeachment court, however, and there’s no benchmark for commonality. The impeachment of a vice president is the first of its kind in our country.

The withdrawal of the three articles has added fuel to the battle of narratives.

The prosecution says that with the presentation of the case on unexplained wealth, backed by the much awaited bank records and testimonies of bank executives and the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the unfitness of Duterte to continue serving as Vice President has been established.

On the other hand, the defense says the three cases were dropped because of the weakness of the evidence.

Prosecutors, however, won’t rest their case if they expect its dismissal. And considering the reactions from the defense, the development appears to favor the prosecution.

*      *      *

Politically, a protracted trial would have favored the VP, who has already announced her intention to seek the presidency in 2028. She can paint herself as an underdog, oppressed by selective prosecution.

But with the drastic shortening of the trial, the Senate seems to be on track to finish the proceedings by November – the timetable projected by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian. Even if the defense tries to prolong the trial, how much can be done along this line without taxing everyone’s patience?

The other speculation is that the prosecution rested its case because – apart from believing that it has established its basis for declaring the VP unfit for public office – the votes to convict are already in the bag. Based on a recent Senate ruling, that’s a minimum of 14. There’s growing buzz that even 16 is possible.

Members of the Senate majority have stressed that Sen. Mark Villars’s jump to their bloc, raising their ranks to 14, is unrelated to the impeachment vote, and that no one can predict how the senators might rule on the impeachment.

While the VP may be able to explain her utilization of confidential funds – before the impeachment court or in a press conference – the testimonies and documents presented for the unexplained wealth can be too damning to ignore.

Whether or not the defense is allowed to rebut the dropped articles, the prosecution has rested its case.