Prosecution: Alleged constitutional violations underpin VP Sara impeachment case

MANILA – A House prosecution panel spokesperson on Saturday said the prosecution’s confidence in its impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte stems from “clear evidence of constitutional violations,” not from any assurance of enough votes of senators. 

Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto-Adiong said in a DZMM interview that they remain “confident” in the vice president’s conviction, citing evidence presented during the previous trial proceedings that allegedly showed constitutional violations.

“We are confident,” Adiong said. “One does not need to be a lawyer to understand that she had actually committed violation in the Constitution. Una, hindi siya nag-divest ng interest niya sa mga negosyo noong siya naging bise presidente. 

“Pangalawa, ang kaniyang submitted BIR record doon sa mga other possible sources na pwede niyang pagkunan other than her salary, kumuha din siya ng sweldo sa Davao City for two consecutive SALN,” Adiong added. 

The prosecution had presented witnesses involving Duterte’s unexplained wealth with financial records and testimony in previous proceedings, with Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura testifying on covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte, her husband Manases Carpio, and companies linked to them.

It also presented forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera, who examined financial transactions, tax records and corporate information. 

Cabrera’s findings included P817.87 million in allegedly undeclared assets and income involving Duterte and Carpio from 2022 to 2025. 

Separately, the prosecution presented evidence concerning the alleged misuse of confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, which Duterte headed before leaving the department in 2024.

Adiong did not cite any specific vote count in his response, instead pointing to documents submitted by the vice president herself as the basis for the prosecution’s confidence.

“It’s already a violation again. So you don’t need to be an expert and be a constitutional expert for that matter to understand what the vice president did and what the vice president declared in her SALN,” he said.

Adiong acknowledged that dropping three of the five impeachment articles could put the prosecution at a disadvantage because the Senate would have only one remaining article on which to decide Duterte’s political fate.

“Pero ito kasi isa lang ang magiging paksa ng mga senato-judges na kanilang ipagbobotohan. So it’s now or never, parang ganoon ang interpretation ko doon,” he said.

The prosecution had initially pursued multiple articles, which could have given senators alternative grounds for conviction if one article failed to secure the required votes.

However, Adiong said the panel considered the possibility that the proceedings could drag on into next year, as well as concerns about impeachment fatigue.

He maintained that a conviction on the remaining article would be enough to remove Duterte from office and perpetually disqualify her from holding public office.

Adiong also addressed concerns that the prosecution’s evidence against Duterte had not significantly affected public perception, with surveys continuing to show support for the vice president.

He said senators should not allow survey results or political pressure to determine their judgment in the impeachment trial.

“This all depends on how the senator-judges would actually approach the case. If they’re being swayed by publicity, if they’re being swayed by surveys, na alam naman po natin ang mga surveys is just a snapshot,” he said.

“Hindi talaga siya name-maintain. Ibig sabihin, in one certain survey firms on a certain particular quarter, tumaas ‘yung trust rating. Tapos ibang survey naman or sa susunod na survey naman bumaba pa,” he added.

For Adiong, the prosecution’s evidence and the Constitution should remain the basis for the Senate’s decision.

“But what is consistent and what should be maintained is what the constitution demands and dictates,” he said.

He also argued that senators, as elected representatives of the people, have a responsibility to render judgment based on the public interest and the country’s welfare.

The impeachment trial is scheduled to resume on November 9, with the defense expected to begin presenting its case.