Three Impeachment Articles Withdrawn: What 'With Prejudice' Means and What Is Left for the Senate to Decide

The confidential funds, bribery, and assassination-threat charges are gone from the trial. Only the unexplained wealth article remains, and the dropped charges are not an acquittal.

Last reviewed: October 24, 2026General legal information, not legal advice
What happened: On October 13, 2026, the 39th trial day, lead House prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro told the Senate impeachment court that the prosecution would no longer pursue three of the four Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte and would "stand on one": Article II, on unexplained wealth, inaccurate Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), and undivested business interests. Presiding Officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero accepted the manifestation the same afternoon. Articles I and IV (confidential funds; grave threats and the alleged assassination plot) were withdrawn with prejudice; Article III (DepEd bribery) without prejudice. No vote will be taken on the three. The defense presents evidence on Article II alone, starting November 9, 2026, with 25 trial days allotted.

Withdrawing three of the four impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte did not acquit her of anything. The Senate impeachment court will never vote on Articles I, III and IV. Articles I and IV cannot be refiled during the 20th Congress; Article III can be refiled later. Her conviction or acquittal now turns on Article II alone.

Legal question

What does it mean when articles of impeachment are withdrawn "with prejudice" or "without prejudice", why is that not an acquittal, and what must the prosecution still prove under the one article left?

Applicable laws and rules

Why this matters

For three months the public heard the impeachment case described in four parts: ₱612.5 million in confidential funds, an alleged plot against the President, cash envelopes at the Department of Education, and unexplained wealth. On October 13 three of those parts left the courtroom without a verdict. Whether that is a win for the Vice President, a tactical narrowing by the prosecution, or a denial of due process depends on exactly what "withdrawn" means in an impeachment, and the Senate court spelled it out in an unusually detailed ruling.

The ruling also decides something practical: whether the same accusations can ever be brought back as impeachment charges, and whether the evidence already aired can be discussed outside the chamber. Those answers differ for each of the three articles.

What each withdrawn article alleged

What remains is Article II: that the Vice President amassed unexplained wealth, filed inaccurate or incomplete SALNs, and failed to divest business interests. For the prosecution and defense positions on all four articles as originally framed, see our companion explainers on the prosecution's case and the defense's answers.

Why the prosecution dropped them

Rep. Luistro told the court that focusing on one article was "the most judicious course": it would spare the court from weighing evidence and objections on four charges, cut about 32 witnesses from the remaining schedule, and respond to public impatience with a case that began in 2024 and to the Senate's pending hearings on the 2027 budget. She said the panel still considers all four charges "equally strong" and that the Article II evidence is "substantial and compelling and warrants the respondent's removal from office."

The timing followed the testimony of the prosecution's final witness, forensic accountant Alexander Cabrera, who on October 12 defended his estimate of about ₱817.87 million in allegedly unexplained wealth and undeclared assets of the Vice President and her husband, Manases Carpio, from 2022 to 2025, with a possible upper figure of about ₱1.5 billion under a less conservative approach. These are prosecution allegations that the defense disputes, not findings of the court.

What the court ruled: with prejudice versus without prejudice

Presiding Officer Escudero accepted the withdrawal but attached different consequences to each article, and criticized the prosecution for the manner of it: "Impeachment is not a charge that may simply be filed, pursued through the presentation of evidence and thereafter withdrawn without the respondent's consent. … Having elected to withdraw the Articles after resting its case, the prosecution must therefore accept the legal consequences of that withdrawal."

The court grounded its authority in Rule 5 of the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, which lets it issue orders necessary to carry the proceedings into effect and essential to the ends of justice, and Rule 6, which allows the suppletory application of the Rules of Court. It also invoked the 2012 Corona precedent: when the prosecution abandoned five articles in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the defense was not required to present evidence on them and they were not submitted to the senator-judges for a vote.

Why "with prejudice" is not an acquittal

In a criminal case, an acquittal is a judgment that the evidence did not prove guilt, and it triggers the constitutional bar against double jeopardy. In a civil case, a dismissal "with prejudice" under Rule 17 of the Rules of Court bars refiling the same claim. The impeachment court borrowed the civil vocabulary, not the criminal judgment. Nobody voted on Articles I, III or IV, so there is no finding that the allegations were true or false.

Three consequences follow. First, the bar is an impeachment bar only: it stops the same accusations from being used to remove the Vice President from office during this Congress. Second, under Article XI, Section 3(7) of the Constitution, an impeachment judgment never extends beyond removal and disqualification, and the official "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law." The court's ruling on Article III expressly notes that the withdrawal does not prevent criminal, civil, administrative or other proceedings on the same allegations, and nothing in the ruling on Articles I and IV purports to bind the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts. Third, the evidence stays. All pleadings, transcripts, exhibits, offers, objections and rulings on the withdrawn articles "remain in the official records and in the custody of the Senate impeachment court," and the court said withdrawal does not declassify evidence, lift an existing seal or protective order, or waive any privilege.

The analogy to double jeopardy under Rule 117, Section 7 is therefore loose. Impeachment is a political process with a political penalty, not a criminal prosecution: under Article XI, Section 3(7) its only judgment is removal and disqualification. The "with prejudice" ruling operates by the court's own authority over its proceedings, not by the Bill of Rights.

The one-year bar is a different rule

Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution says no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within one year. That rule is about when a new complaint may be filed, and it applies whatever the articles say. The "with prejudice" ruling is about what may be charged: Articles I and IV are closed for the rest of the 20th Congress even once the one-year window reopens, while Article III could, in principle, return in a later complaint that clears the one-year bar. The two rules stack; neither replaces the other. When proceedings are "initiated" for the one-year bar has itself been litigated, in Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003) and again in Duterte v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 278353, July 25, 2025).

The sub judice rule was lifted for the three articles

Under Rule 18 of the Senate impeachment rules, parties, counsel and witnesses may not publicly discuss the merits of a pending article. The court lifted that restriction for Articles I, III and IV, so "the prosecutors, the respondent, their respective counsels and witnesses may publicly address, explain and respond to any matter contained in those withdrawn articles." Escudero said he did not want the Vice President prevented from answering, inside or outside the courtroom, allegations the court would never decide. The rule remains in force for Article II. Senator-judge Pia Cayetano questioned the relaxation, and Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan moved for reconsideration, which the presiding officer took under advisement. Escudero also said the withdrawal ruling itself is not necessarily final and can be challenged by senator-judges through parliamentary procedure.

The defense objection

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison argued that the prosecution "cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested," and warned that a shortened proceeding leading straight to judgment would bear "the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial." Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano compared the move to striking first in a fistfight and then asking the other side not to retaliate. Defense spokesperson Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr. called the withdrawal an admission that the allegations lacked basis. The prosecution's answer was Luistro's: the charges remain "equally strong," and the narrowing is a matter of judicial economy. The court's remedy for the due-process concern was the lifting of the gag rule and the ruling that the respondent need not answer the withdrawn articles at all.

What the prosecution must still prove under Article II

Article II alleges three things: unexplained wealth; inaccurate or incomplete SALNs, a duty imposed by Article XI, Section 17 of the Constitution and detailed in Section 8 of RA 6713; and failure to divest business interests, which Section 9 of RA 6713 requires of public officials whose interests conflict with their duties. The constitutional grounds invoked are culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust under Article XI, Section 2.

The Constitution does not fix a standard of proof for impeachment the way the Rules of Court do for criminal cases. Each senator-judge decides whether the evidence warrants removal, and conviction requires two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate under Section 3(6), the threshold examined in our 16-vote explainer. The prosecution's written formal offer of evidence on Article II was due October 23. The defense may rely on evidence already in the record rather than present it anew, provided each item is relevant and admissible to Article II.

What individuals should know

If you are following the trial, the question before the Senate is now a single one: did the Vice President amass unexplained wealth, misdeclare her assets, or keep prohibited business interests, to a degree that amounts to culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust? The confidential funds, bribery and threat allegations will not be decided by this court, and no inference of guilt or innocence should be drawn from their withdrawal.

If you are a public officer, Article II is a reminder that the SALN is the measuring stick. Section 8 of RA 6713 requires a complete and accurate declaration of assets, liabilities, net worth, and business interests of the official, spouse and unmarried children under 18 living in the household; Section 9 requires an official with a conflict of interest to resign from the private enterprise within 30 days of assuming office and to divest the shareholdings or interest within 60 days. Inaccuracies in a SALN carry administrative and criminal exposure independent of any impeachment.

If you are wondering about the withdrawn allegations, remember Section 3(7): removal from office is the only thing an impeachment court can impose, and it is the only thing the "with prejudice" ruling takes off the table. Any other accountability, criminal, civil or administrative, runs through the Ombudsman, the prosecutors and the courts under their own rules, their own standards of proof, and their own prescriptive periods.

Ask PHLaw.AI

Try: "The impeachment court withdrew Articles I and IV against the Vice President with prejudice. Can the Ombudsman still investigate the confidential funds allegations, and could a new impeachment complaint on the same facts be filed after June 30, 2028?"

Ask about this topic

Sources