Implications of dropping 3 Articles of Impeachment

Neither the defense nor the impeachment Court can prevent the prosecution from exercising its inherent prerogative to withdraw three out of the four articles of impeachment. It takes only one article to obtain a conviction.

There was a Corona impeachment precedent. He was convicted only on the SALN article even if there were originally seven articles filed against him. Why waste time, energy and resources when the law allows conviction based only on one article?  The vice president can be charged with grave threats, bribery and misuse of confidential funds in the proper court.

Of course, as the presiding officer explicitly declared in his extended and rather lengthy ruling, the prosecution must accept the legal consequences of such a momentous and far-reaching legal move of dropping Articles I, III and IV despite the fact that evidence was already presented to support Articles I and IV. I was amazed that the presiding officer was able to come out with such a long resolution given the limited time.

 I am sure that the House prosecution pane and its array of private prosecutors have weighed all options thoroughly, and that was not a precipitate, much less a capricious or reckless legal move. The House panel must have consulted the Speaker of the House and the other top honchos of the Lower House before making such a draconian move.

One of the legal consequences is that Articles I and IV may no longer be revived against the vice president during the twentieth Congress. Article III may still be revived during this Congress but not in this impeachment. That means that the House may refile Article III if it so desires and if there are enough House members who would vote for such an article of impeachment again. 

Consequently, the senator/judges are no longer required to vote four times, one each for every article. The defense would have no more reason to present witnesses and documentary witnesses to refute the prosecution's testimonial and documentary evidence. If the defense would still do so, then the prosecution could interpose objections on the ground of being immaterial, impertinent and irrelevant. And the impeachment court should sustain the objection. 

Another legal consequence is that the sub judice rule will no longer apply on the issue of grave threats, misuse of confidential funds and the alleged bribery of DepEd officials. The public and both the prosecution and the defense, including their respective lawyers are now free to ventilate their opinions via mainstream and social media on Articles I, III and IV.

It was also made clear by the impeachment court that all documents, exhibits, pleadings and minutes of the impeachment and the records of proceedings all pertaining to grave threats, misuse of confidential funds and bribery are ordered to remain in the court's records. Thus, being on the records, the senator/judges may still read them before they make a decision to impeach or to exonerate.

The reason for the ruling to retain all such documents on the records is only for purposes of custody for completeness, transparency and accountability. Confidential documents may be subject to reduction and sealing when uploaded for public access and disclosure. I think the court made the correct ruling and the same enjoys the popular support of most of the Filipino people.

The bottomline is very clear. The prosecution case is very strong on Article II. There is no need to burden the court on the other articles. That decision was a wise move, a strategic one. It was a gamble but I am positive that it is a win for the court, and also a win for the people.