The impeachment trial of Sara Duterte is set to resume in only a few days. The defense has their list of witnesses to call to explain Sara's alleged undeclared wealth as per Article 2. However, the very first witness they were set to call has backed out for personal and professional reasons. He wants to stay neutral and has declined to take the stand.
![]() |
| https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/11/05/2568050/ex-law-dean-withdraws-defense-witness-sara-duterte-impeachment-trial |
A former law school dean who was invited by the team of Vice President Sara Duterte has declined to testify for the defense.
In a statement on Thursday, November 5, former University of St. La Salle College of Law dean Ralph Sarmiento said that he was declining the defense panel’s invitation to “preserve the independence” of his “constitutional law scholarship” and the impartiality of his legal views and opinions.
“I had not anticipated that these views might potentially become part of the impeachment proceedings,” Sarmiento said.
“After careful consideration, I have decided to decline participation as a witness in the proceedings,” he added.
Sarmiento said that he had already reached out to the defense team, asking it to withdraw its request for a subpoena or his appearance.
The former law school dean was supposed to be the first witness to be presented by the defense team.
In their manifestation, Duterte’s defense team said that Sarmiento was expected to provide testimony regarding legal and constitutional principles relevant to the case, with a specific focus on Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
Article II accuses Duterte of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust over her alleged unexplained wealth, discrepancies in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and alleged failure to divest from business interests while serving as vice president.
Duterte’s defense team cited Sarmiento’s credentials as a professor of Political and Constitutional Law as evidence of his capacity as a witness.
The defense team’s spokesperson, Michael Poa, said that the panel respects his decision.
“We respect Dean Sarmiento’s personal decision and appreciate his initial consideration of our invitation,” Poa said.
“We wish him well in his continued contributions to constitutional discourse,” he added.
Other witnesses are also expected to be disclosed in subsequent filings for hearings scheduled for November 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 23.
This statement was given November 5th while the trial is set to resume on the 9th. That is a mere 4 days of notice! Why is he only withdrawing now? Will other witnesses decline to take the stand? If so the remaining trial should be rather short. The prosecution is banking on just that.
![]() |
| https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/1007983/end-of-sara-duterte-impeachment-trial-possible-in-november-says-prosecution/story/ |
The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte could wrap up by the end of November if the defense presents its evidence within 10 full trial days, House lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said.
In a statement, Luistro raised the possibility after the House prosecution panel on October 13 dropped three of the four Articles of Impeachment against Duterte, which covered allegations of misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats.
The defense team had originally sought 30 trial days to present its evidence on all four Articles of Impeachment under the pretrial order.
“It’s possible that the trial will conclude before the end of November,” Luistro said.
"We have reason to believe that these 30 trial days will be significantly reduced. Hopefully, only half or 10 days will be needed,” she added.
Luistro, however, said the final trial schedule would remain subject to the approval of the Senate impeachment court and the number of witnesses the defense intends to present.
If the defense requires more than the expected 10 full trial days, the proceedings could extend into December.
"But at any rate, we are all hoping and praying that the impeachment trial will be over before Christmas so we can have closure, and we can all move on,” Luistro said.
The impeachment trial is currently suspended to give way to Senate committee deliberations on the proposed 2027 national budget.
The Senate impeachment court is scheduled to reconvene on November 9 at 10 a.m.
With the decision to drop three Articles of Impeachment, the prosecution will pursue only Article II, which concerns allegations that Duterte failed to fully declare her assets and divest from business interests, raising questions about her unexplained wealth.
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison earlier said the move would not affect the defense panel's presentation of evidence, stressing that Duterte should still be allowed to address allegations already presented before the impeachment court.
“That prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent. The authority to streamline, or to achieve speed in a trial, is not the authority to diminish due process, or to altogether disregard fundamental rules of fairness," Sison said.
"And the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly,” she added.
But what about Senate deliberations? How long will that take? Probably not days but perhaps at least a full day.
There have been accusations about the unfairness of the impeachment court. Luckily we have Representative Adiong, a member of the prosecution team, to give us the thumbs up.
![]() |
| https://mb.com.ph/2026/11/03/andiong-insists-senate-impeachment-court-has-been-fair-cuts-escudero-some-slack |
Lanao del Sur 1st district Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong has come to the defense of the Senate impeachment court, maintaining that it has been handling Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial fairly and efficiently.
This, despite a survey showing that only a minority of Filipinos trust the court's ability to deliver an impartial verdict.
Adiong, a spokesman of House prosecution panel, defended the senator-judges after the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey found that only 28 percent of Filipinos had much trust in the Senate’s ability to hand down a fair verdict. Some 35 percent expressed little trust, while 32 percent were undecided.
“In our view, we believe the court is indeed handling this impeachment trial fairly," Adiong said.
The Mindanaoan reckoned that the prosecution has consistently respected the Senate impeachment court’s authority and complied with its directives.
Adiong also acknowledged the difficult task facing the presiding officer, Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero, in steering the proceedings, particularly in balancing the legal and political dimensions of an impeachment trial.
“We understand that the job of our presiding officer is not easy," he said.
“You have to balance the so-called sui generis nature of the impeachment trial—one is legal, the other one is political," he added.
Despite the low trust rating, the same SWS survey showed that 50 percent of adult Filipinos believed the impeachment court was giving both sides proper consideration. Meanwhile, 51 percent said its final decision should be accepted whether Duterte is convicted or acquitted.
The survey was conducted from Sept. 21 to 27, before the House prosecution withdrew three of the four impeachment articles and wrapped up its presentation of evidence on the remaining charge of alleged unexplained wealth.
Adiong said the prosecution's decision to drop the articles involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats was also intended to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings and adding to the burden of the Senate and the public.
He maintained that the decision allowed the impeachment court to focus on the remaining charge while giving senator-judges room to attend to their legislative responsibilities.
“So I think, going back to your question, I think the impeachment court is doing a very efficient job,” Adiong stressed.
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol had earlier emphasized that senator-judges must decide the case based on the law and admissible evidence, not public opinion.
Tongol, however, acknowledged the importance of maintaining public confidence in the proceedings.
How can Adiong be trusted when the SWS survey shows so little trust? Who can we trust? The very unimpartial Adiong who is directly involved in the trial or the unwashed masses looking on from afar?
The impeachment court has reversed its previous ruling and reimposed its sub judice rule on the articles withdrawn by the prosecution.
![]() |
| https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/11/06/2568289/senate-impeachment-court-reimposes-gag-order-withdrawn-articles |
The Senate impeachment court has reimposed its gag order on the three charges prosecutors dropped against Vice President Sara Duterte, reversing an October ruling that had freed both sides to discuss them in public.
In an order issued on Friday, Nov. 6, the court said the sub judice ban under Rule XVIII of its trial rules applies "with equal force" to all four articles of impeachment, whether withdrawn or still pending.
The aim of the rule is to prevent any side from "litigating dropped charges in the media" while senator-judges try the one remaining charge, Article II, which accuses Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth.
The order resolves a motion for reconsideration that Sen. Kiko Pangilinan raised on October 13. It also follows a November 4 manifestation in which Duterte told the court she was not waiving the rule and wanted the ban kept in place.
The House prosecutors withdrew Articles I, III and IV on October 13, during the trial's 39th day, after the prosecution had formally rested its case.
The dropped articles covered the alleged misuse of confidential funds at the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, alleged bribery of DepEd officials, and threats Duterte allegedly made against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Escudero accepted the withdrawal, and in doing so, had then lifted the sub judice rule on all three dropped articles, reasoning that since Duterte no longer had to answer them in court, she should be free to answer them in public. However, lead defense counsel Sheila Sison objected on the spot, warning that it would open the door to "unregulated and unbridled" public statements against the vice president.
Pangilinan then moved for reconsideration. In response, Escudero held off acting on the motion until the defense formally stated Duterte's position.
Violators of the restored ban face the penalties Escudero laid down on August 26, when the court cleared parties of earlier breaches but promised strict enforcement from then on. A first offense draws a severe reprimand in open court, entered into the record as a final warning. Later violations can bring a fine of up to P30,000 each, limits on an offending lawyer's right to speak, object or question witnesses, and referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Supreme Court.
They say its to prevent those articles from being litigated in the media but no event is cited which triggered this reversal.
The Office of the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition filed by Senators Robin Padilla and Christopher "Bong" Go and their co-petitioners, which challenged the constitutionality of the Senate's September 23, 2026 ruling that modified the voting threshold required to convict an impeached official. The OSG argued that the petition was premature and lacked merit, noting that the petitioners lacked a clear legal right and personal injury since Vice President Sara Duterte, who is directly affected, is not a party to the case.
![]() |
| https://mb.com.ph/2026/11/04/govt-lawyers-ask-sc-to-dismiss-petition-vs-senates-ruling-on-impeachment-conviction-threshold |
Citing prematurity and lack of merit, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the petition filed by Senators Robin Padilla and Christopher “Bong” who challenged the constitutionality of the Sept. 23, 2026 Senate’s ruling which modified the constitutional threshold required to convict an impeached official.
The Sept. 23 Senate ruling as Impeachment Tribunal, in effect, stated that instead of requiring a two-thirds vote of the entire 24-member Senate, the two-thirds requirement should be calculated based on the number of senators who are legally and factually capable of participating at the time the judgment is rendered.
In seeking the dismissal of the petition, the OSG – representing the respondents in the case – told the SC the petitioners lack a clear legal right and personal injury to file the petition.
The OSG said that Vice President Sara Duterte, who will be directly affected by the lowering of the threshold, is not even a petitioner in the case.
“Removal and disqualification would affect Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, who is not a party here and has reserved her own remedies. Petitioners cannot rest their application on a non-party’s injury,” it also said.
Named respondents in the petition were the Senate of the Philippines, sitting as Impeachment Court, represented by Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian; Senator Francis G. Escudero as presiding officer of the Senate Impeachment Court; the House of Representatives led by Speaker Faustino “Bojie” de Guzman Dy III; and the prosecution panel led by Rep. Gerville Luistro.
They were required by the SC to file their comments on the petition filed by Senators Padilla and Go and co-petitioners Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-LABAN) represented by Chairman Alfonso Cusi; Lawyers Esraelito P. Torreon, James Patrick Bondoc, Ferdinan S. Topacio, Raul L. Lambino, and Resci Angelli R. Rizada-Nolasco; and Philip Salvador.
Last Sept. 30, the SC dismissed “on procedural grounds including lack of standing and prematurity” three separate petitions that earlier challenged the constitutionality of the Sept. 23, 2026 Senate ruling.
Dismissed were the petitions filed by former executive secretary Victor D. Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluna Causing, and lawyer Ernesto B. Francisco Jr.
Just like the petitions filed by Senators Padilla and Go and their co-petitioners, the dismissed petitions also asked the SC to order a revert of the threshold to two-thirds of the entire 24 members of the Senate as provided for in the Constitution.
In their petition, Padilla and Go and their co-petitioners told the SC that while their petition is pending and the Senate as Impeachment Court renders judgment convicting Vice President Duterte under the Sept. 23, 2026 ruling, the judgment should be declared null and void “without force or effect.”
They also told the SC: “The Constitution does not count only the Senators it finds convenient. It says ‘all,’ and ‘all’ has never meant ‘some.’ Two-thirds of twenty-four is sixteen. It was sixteen when the Senate convicted a Chief Justice, and it was sixteen on the first day of this trial. It cannot become fourteen because a majority, in the middle of the proceedings and for this case alone, has decided which of its own members deserve to be counted.”
They added that the power to remove a nationally elected official “is the gravest power a legislature holds, because it undoes the choice of the sovereign people.”
Thus, they stressed that the Constitution “fenced it in with a number no majority may lower.”
They pointed out: “The Senate may try. The Senate may decide. It may not convict with fewer votes than the Constitution requires. Impeachment answers to the Constitution, not to the preferences of those who wield it. If the arithmetic of conviction can be changed whenever the votes fall short, the threshold stops being a safeguard and becomes a target.”
In its comment, the OSG told the SC that the issue raised in the petition is considered a political question which should be decided solely by the Senate as an Impeachment Tribunal.
“Respectfully, Respondent reminds that the framers of the Constitution, when drafting the provisions which would come to lay out the impeachment, placed the process away from the judiciary, and into the authority and power of the political branches,” the OSG said.
It also said that the Senate ruling on the voting threshold did not amend, but merely interpreted, the constitutional provision.
“The Senate’s threshold ruling was an attempt to remove the two-thirds requirement. It was a rule on who should be counted as part of the Senate Impeachment Court when some senators are unable to take their oaths or participate,” the OSG stressed.
At the same time, the OSG said the threshold ruling “is also not arbitrary nor oppressive” since it is consistent with “well-established principles, such as that a public officer who is detained may be unable to perform official functions.”
Such principles apply to a senator who is detained or on medical leave, it also said.
“The Constitution should not be read to require the Senate to treat such senators as having participated when, in fact, they did not,” the OSG stressed.
Furthermore, the OSG maintained that the issue presents a political question meant to be decided solely by the Senate as an Impeachment Tribunal, and that the challenged ruling merely interpreted how to calculate the two-thirds requirement when certain senators are legally or factually unable to participate, such as those detained or on medical leave.


















