October 13, 2026

Lead public prosecutor Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro requested withdrawal of Articles 1 on confidential funds, 3 on bribery and 4 on threats, leaving the prosecution to pursue only Article 2. She argued that Article 2 evidence on unexplained wealth, SALN violations and prohibited business interests independently warranted removal for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

Luistro argued that concentrating on Article 2 would narrow the formal offer and objections, conserve government resources and give the Senate time for legislation and the 2027 budget. She maintained that all four articles were equally strong and suggested public platforms for answering the withdrawn allegations.

Lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila C. Sison expressly said she did not object to withdrawal. She challenged its consequences: the prosecution could not dictate the defense's presentation or replace an opportunity to answer accusations aired in court with public statements. She warned that curtailing defense evidence to hasten judgment would bear the characteristics of a mistrial.

Sison reserved the respondent's legal remedies and sought the extended ruling for client consultation. She objected to relaxing Rule 18 while Article 2 remained on trial, arguing that unrestricted public accusations could harm the integrity of the proceedings. She maintained that evidence objections should be decided when the defense offered the material and in light of its stated purpose.

Defense counsel and spokesperson Atty. Michael Wesley Poa said an RTC gag order in the grave-threats case prevented the defense from speaking about Article 4 despite the impeachment court's Rule 18 relaxation. He said press conferences could not substitute for subpoenaed witnesses presenting controverting evidence and undertook consultation with the respondent, hoping to report her instructions within 28 to 48 hours.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero confirmed the withdrawal of Articles 1 and 4 with prejudice and Article 3 without prejudice, leaving Article 2 for trial. The bar on Articles 1 and 4 covered substantially the same constitutional accusations against the respondent during the same term and the 20th Congress; other legally governed proceedings remained available. Article 3 had no prosecution evidentiary case presented under it.

The withdrawn articles would receive no vote or verdict of conviction or acquittal. The court directed the respondent's evidence-in-chief toward Article 2 and allowed her to adopt relevant, otherwise admissible evidence already in the official record. In later clarification, the presiding officer said defense initiatives in court remained open, subject to prosecution objections and court rulings at the appropriate time.

The court relaxed Rule 18 on the separate merits of Articles 1, 3 and 4 while retaining it for Article 2. Seals, privileges, protective orders and restrictions on evidence disclosure remained in force. The relaxation remained operative pending notice of the respondent's position after client consultation; reconsideration could then proceed in whole or in part, including during recess.

The court retained withdrawn-article materials in the official record and directed the Clerk of Court to classify attachments for public, redacted, controlled, sealed or separately protected access before release. Confidential official-use copies were to carry recipient-specific watermarks and distribution records. Uploading the formal offer would not itself authorize publication of its attachments; only versions permitted under their access classification could be uploaded.

The prosecution's Article 2 formal offer was due October 23. The respondent would have ten days from receipt to file comments and objections, followed by the court's ruling. Defense evidence-in-chief was scheduled to begin November 9; the court required five-day witness notice and requested estimated witness numbers and trial days.

The presiding officer denied the prosecution's motion to strike the defense's use of persecution, explaining that the term appeared in the respondent's answer and described her view of the complaint.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano questioned how withdrawing articles after presenting their evidence served everyone's interests. Luistro cited time, government resources, legislative work and the budget; he argued that fairness should take priority over finishing in November and that the prosecution had chosen to spend 38 days presenting its case. He distinguished unpresented Article 3 from Articles 1 and 4, whose allegations had already reached the court and public, and asked whether their withdrawal would be treated as acquittal; Luistro began an answer but did not complete it. Describing impeachment as both judicial and political, he argued that the respondent needed an opportunity to answer accusations affecting her reputation, and asked how a Facebook broadcast or press conference could compel hostile witnesses through court subpoenas. Luistro said her alternative-platform suggestion responded to the defense's concern that prosecution evidence had already been seen publicly. In answering the Presiding Officer's hypothetical about withdrawing every article, Cayetano agreed the proceeding would then stop, but said retaining one article while withdrawing completed evidentiary accusations left the fairness problem unresolved; the Chair noted his remarks before proceeding to the ruling. In his later intervention, he appreciated the Chair's openness and colleagues' positions, urged that the defense receive a chance when trial resumed November 9, and linked the court's conduct to constitutional due process and public confidence. He questioned the lack of consultation over a whole-day November 10 sitting and reiterated that the budget should take priority, requesting discussion among Senate leaders. The Presiding Officer referred the calendar matter to the Senate President and Majority Leader.

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan recalled that alternating prosecution and defense evidence by article had been available if both parties agreed, but no agreement was reached. Later, he said lifting Rule 18 gave the respondent an opportunity to answer publicly, while offering reconsideration if she preferred. The presiding officer said reconsideration could be sought after client consultation. Returning to Rule 18, Pangilinan proposed keeping it enforced pending reconsideration when trial resumed. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero instead proposed activating reconsideration after the respondent communicated her wishes. Pangilinan then moved to authorize the presiding officer to rule during recess, and Sen. Joel Villanueva seconded. The chair took reconsideration under advisement pending the respondent's notice and confirmed he could act during recess. Pangilinan's proposed interim continuation of Rule 18 was not adopted: the chair later confirmed that relaxation for the withdrawn articles remained effective while awaiting the defense's response.

Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino asked both parties to consult their teams and the defense to consult its client on whether they wanted the articles withdrawn, stressing the consequence of withdrawal with prejudice. He asked whether withdrawal was the prosecution's decision or the court's and whether the defense could seek reconsideration. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero answered that the prosecution requested withdrawal and the court decided it, describing the ruling as subject to appeal or reconsideration; he then explained that the rules provided no mechanism to receive evidence on articles that would no longer be voted upon. Aquino asked Sison whether her concern was the ability to answer the allegations rather than withdrawal itself. Sison agreed to consult the client but insisted that the prosecution's decision should not preempt the respondent's choice of evidence or presentation time. The presiding officer subsequently said the respondent's evidence remained subject to prosecution objections and court rulings.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros said she wanted to hear the Vice President respond to the prosecution's allegations, while the defense had yet to tell the court how it wished to proceed and the court's action on that position remained pending. Her manifestation received no direct response before the discussion moved to Sen. Pia S. Cayetano.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano urged time for the defense to consult its client and choose how to respond to the withdrawal, arguing that the respondent had a right to defend her reputation in the same court where the accusations were aired. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero cited the 26-day recess and remedies within and outside court, including tender of excluded evidence. Cayetano pressed for a decision on Rule 18 before public discussion opened; the resulting arrangement left reconsideration awaiting the respondent's instructions and allowed the presiding officer to act during recess. Returning to the issue, she asked whether Rule 18 was already lifted while the defense considered its response. Escudero answered yes for the withdrawn articles, saying the respondent should be able to answer outside court, and invited an early request for reimposition. Cayetano objected that this interim gap could undermine a later decision to answer in court and proposed maintaining the status quo while the defense deliberated. The chair noted her remarks; the relaxation remained effective pending further action.

Sen. Joel Villanueva seconded Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan's motion to authorize the presiding officer to act during recess on the Rule 18 issue. The presiding officer said the court would act on Pangilinan's reconsideration and appeal after notice of the respondent's wishes, including during recess. Villanueva then requested a copy of the ruling and said he supported most of it but had reservations about lifting Rule 18: he wanted the respondent given adequate time to defend herself in court even on the withdrawn articles. He praised Cabrera's previous-day presentation, reserved other objections for written comments and urged against haste. His substantive reservations received no direct answer before the discussion moved to Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano; the presiding officer later promised the ruling's transcript that afternoon, marked draft pending checking against delivery.

Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero asked whether Sison was objecting to withdrawal; she clarified that she was making a manifestation reserving the defense's own decisions about presenting its case. He explored Cayetano's distinction between withdrawing every charge and withdrawing three while retaining one, asking what would happen if the prosecution abandoned all articles after presenting evidence. Cayetano agreed that complete withdrawal would end the proceeding but maintained that partial withdrawal left a fairness problem. Escudero recalled the earlier proposal to alternate prosecution and defense evidence article by article, saw the parties' and Cayetano's concerns, and urged future impeachment courts to learn from this situation. Pangilinan recalled that alternating presentation had depended on both parties agreeing, which they had not. Escudero then asked Sison what adjudicative purpose evidence on withdrawn articles would serve, distinguishing that question from the respondent's wish to be heard after the prosecution. She contrasted the completed presentations here with the Corona withdrawals and argued that justice and fairness required the defense to determine its own presentation. When she questioned whether alternating articles would have changed the problem, he observed that both sides would already have been heard before a later withdrawal. In explaining his fairness concerns, he said the purpose of relaxing Rule 18 was to give the respondent an opportunity to answer, rather than create unrestricted public accusations. He returned to the complete-withdrawal hypothetical and contrasted it with the present situation, in which a surviving article kept the court and its procedures available; his closing question received no direct answer before Pangilinan spoke.

Public prosecutor Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno requested marking of materials associated with the previous day's witness, Atty. Alexander B. Cabrera: his curriculum vitae, forensic report, Annexes A to E and a flash drive. The presiding officer ordered marking later before the Clerk of Court in the presence of both parties' counsel.

Sison requested judicial notice of Amoroso v. Vantage Drilling International and Group of Companies, G.R. No. 238477, arguing that piercing corporate fiction requires jurisdiction and due process. Diokno responded that piercing the corporate veil was also an accounting principle and reserved further argument. The presiding officer said legal memoranda and closing arguments would follow the respondent's evidence-in-chief.

After the exhibit-marking and corporate-veil exchanges, Luistro manifested withdrawal of three articles. Sison challenged the consequences for defense presentation, and the presiding officer recessed to consult senator-judges. On resumption, party arguments and senator-judge interventions preceded the extended ruling.

The defense's Rule 18 objection led to further discussion of client consultation and reconsideration. The court adjourned until November 9 at 10 a.m.

Article 2 remained for trial, with the formal offer, defense comments and objections, and the court's admissibility ruling still ahead of the November 9 defense presentation.

The respondent's chosen course on Rule 18 awaited client consultation and notice to the court. The existing relaxation remained effective until reconsideration was acted upon, potentially for individual withdrawn articles.