Defense challenges comments on evidence
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison said she would give the clerk of court a link to statements by private prosecutors that she believed may have breached the sub judice rule. She identified the prosecution's Monday press conference and remarks by private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. as the comments at issue, GMA News reported.
"These statements not only go into a fair comment. In fact, they go into the probative value of their supposed cross examination and of the weight of the evidence presented by the defense yesterday and of the testimonial weight given by the witnesses," Sison said.
Tolosa said prosecutors reserved the right to seek a declaration that Duterte herself had violated the rule. "I think it does not escape everyone, the incessant attacks against the integrity of the impeachment court itself and the senator-judges by no less than the Vice President," he said.
Restrictions cover pending and withdrawn charges
The court has barred senator-judges and lawyers for both sides from commenting publicly on the merits of Duterte's impeachment case. Its latest ruling says the sub judice principle in Rule 18 of the impeachment trial rules applies "with equal force" to charges still awaiting adjudication and those already withdrawn.
The November 5, 2026 order reversed presiding officer Chiz Escudero's October 13 position that the restriction no longer covered the three withdrawn articles, according to Philstar and Cebu Daily News (Inquirer). Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan had sought reconsideration, and Duterte stated in a November 4 manifestation that she was not waiving Rule XVIII's protection.
A first breach of the gag order carries a ₱30,000 fine under the court's August 26 ruling. The November 5 order also provides for possible additional consequences for repeat violations: restrictions on participation in the proceedings, an indirect contempt citation, referral to the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, and ethics complaints.
One impeachment article remains
House prosecutors withdrew three of the four impeachment articles on October 13, saying they would proceed on Article II alone. That charge alleges unexplained wealth involving incomplete asset declarations and failure to divest business interests.
The withdrawn charges concerned confidential funds under Article I; bribery under Article III; and an assassination plot, grave threats and inciting to sedition against President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez under Article IV.
The withdrawals have different legal consequences. The court dismissed Articles I and IV with prejudice, preventing them from being brought against Duterte again during her current term, Philstar reported. Article III may be refiled because prosecutors withdrew it before presenting evidence.
Defense testimony and witness warnings
On November 10, the defense presented its second witness, Samal City Assessor John Kenneth Enumerables, an engineer, to testify about a property in the Island Garden City of Samal linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio. His testimony was part of the defense's effort to rebut the allegation that Duterte had not properly declared the property in her SALN, Inquirer.net reported.
The court also followed up on documents requested from the defense's first witness, Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin, an engineer who testified on November 9. Questioned about a China trip, Adalin acknowledged traveling there in January 2026 for personal purposes. By November 10, he had not supplied the requested documents, according to GMA News Online.
Escudero instructed the clerk of court to follow up with Adalin and warned that the court would issue compulsory process if he failed to comply by the following day without sufficient cause.
After Senator-Judge Vicente "Tito" Sotto III asked about penalties, Escudero reminded witnesses that lying under oath could result in contempt citations and perjury charges. Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson pointed to Rule V of Resolution No. 39 as the express basis for the court's power to punish contempt.
Escudero said he hoped the trial would finish before Christmas or New Year, but stressed that there was no firm timetable. Its duration would depend on the defense's presentation of evidence.
