After nearly 40 days of presenting evidence, the prosecution withdrew Articles I, III, and IV of the impeachment complaint. However, the defense is still expected to remain silent on those withdrawn allegations. Here is an analysis of why restricting the defense’s response undermines fundamental fairness.

On October 13, 2026, the House prosecution panel, through Lead Prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro, manifested that it would no longer pursue Article I (confidential funds), Article III (bribery), and Article IV (grave threats/assassination plot). Instead, it chose to proceed solely with Article II, which concerns unexplained wealth, Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) issues, and prohibited business interests.



The Senate impeachment court, under Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero, accepted the withdrawal. Articles I and IV were withdrawn with prejudice, while Article III was withdrawn without prejudice but barred from revival in the current trial. Consequently, the defense is not formally required to present evidence against the withdrawn articles.

This is unbelievable and unacceptable.



The prosecution spent weeks using government time, public resources, and public attention to present witnesses and evidence regarding these allegations. Those accusations were aired publicly, scrutinized, and allowed to shape public perception of the respondent.

Now, after placing these allegations in the public domain, the prosecution can simply withdraw them and expect the defense to remain silent. That is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the core principles of due process.

That is not how due process should work.


The prosecution should not be permitted to publicly advance serious accusations, expose the respondent to intense public scrutiny, and then unilaterally decide which allegations the respondent may address. The right to be heard must mean more than the opportunity to defend against whatever charges remain. It must also account for the damage caused by allegations already aired in court.

If the primary objective of withdrawing these articles is to expedite the proceedings without giving the defense a meaningful opportunity to rebut previously presented evidence, the fairness and integrity of the entire trial are compromised.

The respondent must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to answer the accusations already leveled against her before this Court. 

Abandoning charges does not erase public proceedings or neutralize the impact of public accusations. The defense must not be constrained by the prosecution’s strategic decision to narrow charges after presenting its case.

Furthermore, lifting the sub judice rule on withdrawn articles while denying the defense a formal trial forum to respond creates a troubling imbalance. If allegations continue to circulate publicly without a structured opportunity for the respondent to answer within court proceedings, the trial risks becoming a one-sided public accusation.

That is not justice. That is a dangerous precedent.



Justice cannot be reduced to the selective pursuit of charges after the damage of public accusation has already been done. Nor should procedural decisions become a means of controlling not only which charges proceed, but also whether the respondent is given a fair opportunity to address the allegations already presented against her.



Justice cannot be reduced to the selective pursuit of charges after public accusations have already taken effect. Procedural decisions must not dictate whether a respondent gets a fair chance to address allegations brought against her.

The core principle is clear: The right to a fair hearing must not depend on changing prosecution strategy. A credible impeachment proceeding must uphold fairness, impartiality, and due process at every stage.

STAND FOR DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL



The public must demand proceedings that uphold transparency, fairness, and the right to a complete defense. The Senate impeachment court must ensure that procedural rulings do not deny the respondent a meaningful forum to address all public allegations. Due process and equal justice under the law must be preserved over political convenience.

Share this statement, join the conversation, and call on our public officials to uphold the principles of due process and equal justice under the law.



Because in a democracy governed by the rule of law, no one should be publicly accused without a meaningful opportunity to answer—and no proceeding should be considered fair unless both sides are given a genuine opportunity to be heard.

Key Points Summary:

• Prosecution withdrew Articles I, III, and IV after nearly 40 days of presenting evidence, proceeding only with Article II.
• Denying the defense an opportunity to respond to the publicly presented allegations of the withdrawn charges violates basic due process.
• Lifting the sub judice rule while preventing a trial response creates a one-sided public accusation.
• Call to action for the public and the Senate impeachment court to stand for complete defense, transparency, and equal justice.