A statue of Lady Justice holding the scales. Photo: Scotted400 (CC0), via Wikimedia Commons.
OPINION — This is an opinion column from The Philippines Web opinion desk. It reflects the writer’s views and is not a news report. It is based on reporting through Oct. 5. Here is the question I keep asking myself: how do you defend yourself against a case that keeps changing shape?
First the Charge Stays, Then It Goes
In early September, prosecutors told the court they would keep the bribery charge but present it last. Lead prosecutor Jinky Luistro said, “We’re not waiving the presentation of evidence for bribery.” That sounded firm. Yet Manila Rep. Joel Chua had earlier said the team was considering dropping Article III altogether to expedite the proceedings. The public heard two messages at once.
Then came Sunday, October 4. Chua confirmed it: “Yes, it is confirmed.” The bribery allegation is being dropped. That allegation, listed as Article III, alleged that Vice President Sara Duterte bribed Department of Education officials while education secretary from 2022 to 2024, with nine envelopes of P50,000 each allegedly given to then-DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado.
The stated reason is speed. Chua said the move is meant to keep the trial from spilling into next year. He said it was not because the case was weak, and that the evidence under the remaining articles is sufficient. But the trial began in July, the October 5 hearing was its 33rd day, and prosecutors had initially hoped to finish presenting evidence in the week of October 5 before turning the case over to the defense.
Witnesses In, Witnesses Out
Look at October 1. Philstar’s recap said the day produced testimony from just two witnesses, the registers of deeds of Davao City and Samal. Prosecutors dropped former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, with lead prosecutor Luistro giving no reason in court, Philstar reported. Trillanes said it was at his request. The AMLC witness was postponed at the defense’s request.
Days earlier, prosecutors had sought to put Trillanes on the stand ahead of other witnesses. Prosecutor Rep. Terry Ridon said his testimony would reveal weighty matters that “go beyond” the VP’s bank accounts. In a press briefing on Tuesday, September 29, the prosecution said his information would “draw attention.” The court had declined to subpoena him that Tuesday, saying bank records or an AMLC witness should come before him.
Even a senator-judge noticed. Sen. Raffy Tulfo told the prosecution it sometimes messes up. He added, in the translation published by Philstar, “There are times when you present witnesses here who aren’t really necessary.” The prosecution said it would “take due notice and consider the advice of the senator judge.”
The Defense Is Asked to Keep Up
Now the paperwork. Defense counsel Sheila Sison said the defense received an 11-page AMLC summary only late on the morning of October 1, with “at least 23 to 24 boxes of documents” to examine. The Article II case rests largely on AMLC reports covering P6.77 billion in transactions involving the VP and her husband. That is the heart of the matter.
Prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno said the defense had notice of the AMLC records since September 2. But in my view, notice that records exist is not the same as having time to digest a summary and a mountain of documents. A trial this serious needs evidence delivered on time, not sprinted across the defense table.
Fairness Cuts Both Ways
On October 5, the defense lost a round, and I say so plainly. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero denied the defense motion, filed by counsel Mark Vinluan, to exclude AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura. He ruled that AMLC reports are not absolutely immune from compulsory process.
That same day, Escudero told the court: “Our duty is not to prevail over one another, but to assist this Court in the fair and orderly administration of justice.” I agree, and that standard applies to everyone, including whoever sets the calendar. Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the court “has yet to formally or informally discuss” a timetable, let alone a verdict date of December 16, which he called “merely the opinion of the spokesperson.” Filipinos should not hear a verdict date floated that the senator-judges themselves have not set.
Even the Palace Is Asking Questions
Malacañang, through PCO Undersecretary Claire Castro, questioned the decision. In translation, she asked whether backing out of the bribery accusation would not shortchange Filipinos who want to know the full truth, since including it implied there was enough evidence to discuss it. Castro said the decision ultimately rests with the prosecution.
To be clear: the House impeached the vice president in May 2026 on allegations of theft of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery and grave threats. Duterte has not been convicted of anything. Trillanes claimed in April that Duterte and her immediate family received millions from an alleged drug lord; Duterte has denied it. I am asking for proof.
The Bottom Line
A trial this serious needs evidence delivered on time and a case that does not change shape week to week. Prosecutors say the case is not weak, and the evidence will tell. But a shrinking case is not a stronger case, and Filipinos deserve a fair, evidence-based process.
Sources for facts cited: Daily Tribune (Sept. 2, Sept. 7 and Oct. 4, 2026) on the bribery charge and the Palace response; Philstar.com (Oct. 1 and Oct. 4, 2026) on the witness changes, the AMLC documents and the verdict-date dispute; Inquirer.net (Oct. 5, 2026) on the Oct. 5 ruling. Analysis and conclusions are the author’s opinion.
About the Author
