The Senate impeachment court faced an unusual legal dilemma when the House prosecution withdrew charges against Vice President Sara Duterte after presenting evidence, with no directly comparable precedent to guide its decision, court spokesperson lawyer Reginald Tongol said Wednesday.

In a televised interview, Tongol said presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero had to balance the prosecution’s authority to withdraw impeachment charges against the respondent’s right to defend herself, particularly after the public had already heard the allegations.

Tongol acknowledged that the 2012 impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, during which five of eight articles were withdrawn, offered no identical precedent because the prosecution had not yet presented evidence on those charges.

In Duterte’s case, the House panel had already presented witnesses and evidence on Articles I and IV before deciding to withdraw them, alongside Article III, which had not undergone evidentiary presentation.

Tongol said Escudero recognized the absence of a clear procedural solution that would satisfy both parties, leaving the court to exercise its discretion based on existing legal principles.

“Talagang merong hindi makaka-accept ng kanyang decision (There will inevitably be those who cannot accept his decision),” he said.

The spokesperson explained that the House prosecution has the sole authority to initiate impeachment proceedings and cannot be compelled to continue pursuing charges it no longer intends to prosecute.

However, he said the Senate retains the authority to determine whether the withdrawal should be allowed and what legal consequences should follow.

To balance these competing interests, Escudero allowed the withdrawal of Articles I and IV but ordered their dismissal with prejudice, which Tongol said bars their refiling during the 20th Congress and Duterte’s current term.

The court also decided that senator-judges would no longer vote on the withdrawn articles, reasoning that allowing the defense to present additional witnesses on charges no longer subject to judgment would serve no adjudicatory purpose.

Tongol said Escudero recognized that future impeachment courts confronting a similar situation might develop a different approach to withdrawals made after the prosecution has completed its presentation.

For now, he said, the presiding officer must stand by the ruling unless it is challenged by a senator-judge.

Meanwhile, the trial will proceed with Article II, with Duterte’s defense scheduled to begin presenting its evidence on Nov. 9.

The House prosecution has until Oct. 23 to submit its formal offer of documentary evidence, after which the defense will have 10 days from receipt to file its comments or objections. (PNA)