Luistro: Filipinos have the right to hear Sara Duterte answer impeachment allegations
MANILA, Philippines — House lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro said Filipinos have the right to hear Vice President Sara Duterte personally answer the allegations being raised against her in the ongoing Senate impeachment trial.
Luistro's remarks come as the prosecution continues presenting evidence against Duterte, with the trial now entering another critical phase involving allegations of unexplained wealth and the earlier accusations involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
The prosecution has maintained that the proceedings are about establishing the allegations through evidence before the Senate impeachment court—not simply making accusations against the Vice President.
Prosecution shifts focus to unexplained wealth
The latest development came as the House prosecution team changed the order in which it would present its remaining evidence.
Luistro told the Senate impeachment court that prosecutors would advance the presentation of Article II, which concerns allegations of unexplained wealth involving Duterte.
She stressed, however, that the prosecution was not abandoning the bribery allegation under Article III. Instead, prosecutors decided to present the unexplained-wealth evidence first and return to the bribery allegations afterward.
The move marks a significant shift in the trial's strategy as prosecutors work through the remaining articles of impeachment.
Confidential-fund allegations remain central
Before moving to the unexplained-wealth allegations, the prosecution had been presenting evidence concerning the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of confidential funds involving the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) during Duterte's tenure as vice president and education secretary.
On September 7, Luistro confirmed that prosecutors would no longer call former OVP and DepEd security officials Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco as witnesses.
According to the House prosecution panel, the testimony and evidence already presented were sufficient, in its view, to establish the allegations involving the confidential funds.
The decision came despite calls from some senator-judges for the two officials to appear and explain issues surrounding names appearing on acknowledgment receipts connected to the confidential funds.
PSA testimony raises new questions
The trial also produced another potentially damaging development for the defense.
Philippine Statistics Authority Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande testified that some names appearing as supposed recipients of confidential funds did not correspond to Philippine civil-registry records.
According to GMA News, Grande testified that some names had no birth, marriage or death records, while another name on an acknowledgment receipt belonged to an individual who had died decades earlier.
The prosecution has cited such records as part of its effort to establish its allegations concerning the handling and liquidation of confidential funds.
The defense, however, has previously indicated that it was prepared to explain the use of aliases and unusual names appearing in the documents, including the widely discussed name “Mary Grace Piattos.”
Luistro: The public deserves an answer
Against that backdrop, Luistro has repeatedly argued that Duterte should have the opportunity to directly address the allegations.
Earlier in the impeachment process, Luistro said the Vice President's camp had missed opportunities to respond point-by-point to accusations contained in the complaints. She said the proceedings provided Duterte with an opportunity to answer the allegations before the case moved forward.
The issue of Duterte's participation has remained contentious.
The House proceedings were initially designed to determine whether there was sufficient basis to proceed with impeachment. The Senate, however, is now acting as the impeachment court, where the evidence is being tested in the trial.
The Supreme Court's August ruling also cleared the way for the Senate to proceed, affirming the constitutional distinction between the House's power to initiate impeachment and the Senate's power to try and decide an impeachment case.
Trial enters a crucial stage
The impeachment trial has already lasted more than 20 hearing days.
The prosecution has completed or substantially advanced its presentation on several allegations, including the accusation that Duterte made threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The threats allegation has taken on additional significance following a separate criminal case. Duterte posted bail on September 5 after a Philippine court issued an arrest order over three counts of grave threats connected to her 2024 remarks. Duterte has denied the accusations and described the legal action as politically motivated.
That criminal case is separate from the impeachment trial, although the alleged threats are also among the matters raised in the impeachment proceedings.
What comes next for Sara Duterte?
The immediate focus is now on the prosecution's presentation of evidence concerning alleged unexplained wealth, followed by the bribery allegations that prosecutors say they have not abandoned.
Meanwhile, the Senate impeachment court must eventually evaluate the evidence presented by both sides before reaching a decision.
For Luistro and the House prosecution, the message remains straightforward: the allegations must be answered through the constitutional process.
For Duterte's defense, the trial remains an opportunity to challenge the prosecution's evidence and present its own explanation of the accusations.
As the proceedings move closer to the defense's turn, one question is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid:
Will Sara Duterte personally take the witness stand—or will her lawyers be the ones to answer the allegations for her?