Ending the noise about “Mary Grace Piattos”

Who would have thought the very camp that made all the noise about Mary Grace Piattos would be the one to put an end to it in a shocking twist in the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte?

Last Tuesday, lead prosecutor Gervile Luistro withdrew Articles I on confidential finds, III on bribery, and IV on grave threats, leaving only Article II, concerning alleged unexplained wealth, for adjudication by the senator-judges. Of all the articles, Article I is the most prominent because the issue on confidential funds was the principal controversy that triggered the filing of the impeachment complaint against her.

Since the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, and the House Quad Committee hearings in 2024, and later the House Justice Committee, the name “Mary Grace Piattos” has circulated widely on social media, often becoming the subject of ridicule alongside other unusual names including Renan Piattos, Nova Santos, Patty Ting, Andi Lim, Xuniso Belat, Antonio Pagong, Shane Ngitngit, etc. These names were associated with allegations her confidential funds were received by questionable or supposedly fictitious individuals.

Now, that the case has finally reached the impeachment court, the public has been waiting for the moment when these names would finally be scrutinized and the defense can explain who these alleged recipients were. People are excited to know whether or not the explanation is acceptable.

Surprisingly, the biggest twist is that the prosecution has withdrawn the impeachment article involving confidential funds, where Mary Grace Piattos and other “funny” names became part of the controversy. What a disappointment for those waiting for answers.

Such moves by the prosecution becomes bad optics for them because people might think the articles were withdrawn for lack of evidence. It could reinforce VP Sara’s claim the prosecution doesn’t have evidence to substantiate their allegations.

Also people can easily see the point of fairness as manifested by defense lead counsel Atty. Shiela Sison. Sison argued their client was already subjected to public scrutiny during the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, yet the defense will no longer have the opportunity to present evidence to refute the allegations under the withdrawn articles. It’s unfair to the defense.

To be fair, withdrawing articles is within the prerogative of the prosecution. Cong. Luistro reasoned out that by doing so, they save government time and resources. As a result the defense only needs to present evidence concerning Article II to shorten the proceedings.

Nevertheless, the public deserves a sincere explanation for the prosecution’s move. Speaking of saving time and resources, why did the prosecution spend time and resources presenting Articles I and IV over 30 trial days, only to withdraw them eventually? If the prosecution claims this is part of its strategy, that maybe understandable, provided that public resources aren’t wasted.

Is it not that the Senate spends ?25 million per day, as claimed by Senators Win Gatchalian and Ping Lacson?