The Withdrawal of Articles I, III, and IV in the Impeachment Proceedings Against the Vice President: Procedural Consequences and the Residual Viability of Article II
The Withdrawal of Articles I, III, and IV in the Impeachment Proceedings Against the Vice President: Procedural Consequences and the Residual Viability of Article II
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
October 15, 2026
In Philippine constitutional practice, impeachment is a sui generis proceeding that is political in origin yet quasi-judicial in its evidentiary and deliberative phases. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution vests the House of Representatives with the sole power of impeachment and the Senate with the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases. Once articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate, the impeachment court assumes exclusive jurisdiction over their disposition. The court’s acceptance, on 13 October 2026, of the prosecution’s manifestation withdrawing Articles I (confidential funds), III (bribery), and IV (grave threats and related offenses) therefore carries definitive procedural consequences. Presiding Officer Escudero ruled that Articles I and IV—on which evidence had already been adduced—are withdrawn with prejudice, thereby barring their revival, refiling, or re-prosecution against the same respondent during the present term and the Twentieth Congress. Article III, on which no evidence was presented, was withdrawn without prejudice but may not be revived within the current trial. The respondent is correspondingly relieved of any obligation to present evidence-in-chief against the withdrawn articles.
This outcome does not, however, equate to a formal judicial determination that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case in the strict sense employed under the Rules of Court. In ordinary criminal proceedings, a demurrer to evidence under Rule 119, Section 23, may be filed after the prosecution rests, and a finding of insufficiency results in dismissal with prejudice and the application of double-jeopardy principles. Impeachment, by contrast, does not require a formal offer of evidence before the court may act upon a withdrawal, nor does it automatically convert the prosecution’s tactical decision into a finding of evidentiary insufficiency. The practical effect is simply that the withdrawn articles will not be submitted for adjudication; no burden of proof ever shifted to the respondent on those charges, and none remains.
The sole surviving charge—Article II—alleges the amassing of unexplained wealth, the failure to make full and truthful disclosure in Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) pursuant to Republic Act No. 6713 and related constitutional mandates, and the non-divestment of business interests contrary to the constitutional prohibition on certain private engagements by public officers. Forensic accounting evidence has placed the contested quantum of alleged unexplained wealth in a range of approximately ₱817 million (conservative estimate) to ₱1.5 billion. Within this evidentiary matrix appears the joint time deposit of ₱40.65 million opened on 22 January 2010 at the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Julia Vargas Branch, under the names of Rodrigo Roa Duterte and Sara Z. Duterte. The instrument was rolled over twelve times, matured at approximately ₱41.72 million inclusive of interest in early 2011, was credited to a joint settlement account, and was thereafter converted into manager’s checks that remained outstanding for extended periods. A parallel instrument of ₱55 million produced a combined figure approaching ₱96 million that was not reflected in the relevant SALNs.
Whether this deposit was economically real, beneficially operative, or merely nominal as to the respondent remains an open question of fact for the defense phase. Under Philippine banking practice and the Civil Code provisions governing co-ownership (Articles 484–501), a joint deposit generally confers concurrent rights and corresponding obligations upon each named holder. The absence of the respondent’s signature on particular rollover or manager’s-check instruments does not, of itself, extinguish co-ownership or the presumptive knowledge that accompanies the execution of updated Know-Your-Customer documentation. The defense retains the opportunity to demonstrate that the funds were subject to the exclusive control of the senior account holder, that the respondent lacked actual knowledge or beneficial interest, or that the successive manager’s checks functioned as temporary parking devices whose economic benefit never accrued to her.
Sociological generalizations concerning marital non-interference in a spouse’s financial affairs, or the customary reticence of one spouse regarding extracurricular activities, possess no independent legal force. The Family Code (Articles 73–75, 96, and 124) and the disclosure regime of Republic Act No. 6713 focus on knowledge, control, and benefit rather than cultural patterns of marital privacy. Once an asset appears under both names, the relevant inquiry is whether the public officer was under a duty to disclose it and whether any failure to do so constitutes a culpable violation of the Constitution or a betrayal of public trust.
Collateral suggestions of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, libel under Articles 353–355, or breaches of confidentiality under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Republic Act No. 9160, as amended) lie outside the jurisdiction of the impeachment court. Such causes of action, if viable, must be pursued through the ordinary criminal or administrative processes prescribed by law.
In sum, the withdrawal of Articles I, III, and IV extinguishes those charges for purposes of the present constitutional removal proceeding, relieves the respondent of any defensive burden thereon, and leaves only Article II for adjudication. The residual charge will stand or fall according to whether the prosecution’s documentary and testimonial record establishes, by the quantum of substantial evidence required in impeachment, that the respondent amassed wealth grossly disproportionate to known lawful income or failed to disclose assets she was obliged to declare. The 2010 joint time deposit constitutes one data point within that larger matrix; its ultimate evidentiary weight depends upon proof of beneficial ownership, knowledge, and non-disclosure. Until the defense phase is concluded and the Senate renders its verdict, the constitutional process remains open.
----
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
He has been active in the Philippine art scene since the late 1990s and has worked with galleries, museums, artist-run spaces, and international cultural organizations.His practice appears to represent several interconnected concerns:
Cultural work as artistic practice. Roldan has argued that the labor of curating, organizing exhibitions, teaching, documentation, and cultural administration should be understood as creative work rather than merely support work. This perspective has been reflected in his writings and exhibitions.
Social and political engagement. His artworks frequently address politics, religion, faith, denial, courage, social inequality, and the everyday experiences of Filipinos. He has stated that he draws inspiration from Filipino cultural practices while approaching painting, printmaking, and installation from a conceptual perspective.Printmaking and conceptual art. Roldan is particularly recognized for his printmaking, with works shown internationally, including exhibitions in Japan and France. His practice also encompasses painting, photography, installation, and curatorial research.International cultural exchange. A significant milestone in his career was receiving an Asian Cultural Council fellowship in 2003, which enabled him to undertake research and create work in the United States while engaging with artists and curators internationally.
More broadly, Roldan's work represents an attempt to bridge artistic production, curatorial practice, scholarship, and cultural activism . His writings often emphasize postcolonial discourse, cultural memory, and the ethics of artistic collaboration, positioning the artist not only as a maker of objects but also as a builder of cultural infrastructure.
In the Philippine contemporary art context, he can be understood as representing the figure of the artist-curator-cultural worker —someone who contributes both through making artworks and through developing exhibitions, mentoring artists, and fostering institutional and independent cultural initiatives.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
Asian Cultural Council Alumni Global Networkhttps://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philanthropy while working for institutions simultaneously early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/voluntary services entity and aims to remain so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/ChiTnSEl1VN/?stkn=MWhwZmV2ZWxvYjA1NA==
LanguageLoginCreate connection,Value conversation.For youWho we areMeet the teamICM cultureHow to applyStoriesContact usLanguageManage your cookie preferencesPrivacy & Cookie PoliciesTerms of useGlobal code of conduct & ethicsAll rights reserved Amiel Gerald Roldan® 2026***Disclaimer:This work is my original writing unless otherwise cited; any errors or omissions are my responsibility.The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution.Furthermore, the commentary reflects my personal interpretation of publicly available data and is offered as fair comment on matters of public interest. It does not allege criminal liability or wrongdoing by any individual.
Comments