The House prosecution panel has dismissed allegations that it withdrew three impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte to prevent the defense from presenting damaging witnesses, pointing out that many of the witnesses had already undergone extensive cross-examination.
House trial spokesperson and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong addressed the claims, emphasizing that Vice President Duterte’s legal team had already taken advantage of their opportunities to question key figures who appeared on both sides’ witness lists.
“Una nagka-cross-examine sila, di ba? So may pagkakataon talaga sila,” Alonto Adiong stressed. “In fact, ‘yung mga cross-examination nila, detalyadong-detalyado, eh, mas mahaba pa ‘yung cross-examination.” (First, they cross-examined them, right? So they really had the opportunity. In fact, their cross-examinations were very detailed—even longer than the direct examinations.)
Alonto Adiong explained that the final pre-trial order revealed significant overlap between the witnesses submitted by both teams, including various government officials and key individuals who were listed to testify for both the prosecution and the defense.
Given this setup, the lawmaker rejected the notion that the defense held a secret set of witnesses capable of suddenly dismantling the prosecution’s case.
“Pangalawa, kung babalikan mo ‘yung pre-trial brief na sinubmit nila, ang dami naming witnesses na witnesses din nila. Hindi namin maintindihan. Hindi namin maintindihan,” Alonto Adiong said. (Second, if you look back at the pre-trial brief they submitted, many of our witnesses were also listed as their witnesses. We really can’t understand these claims.)
He estimated that over 30 individuals appeared as common witnesses across both pre-trial lists, “ito na ‘to, mga common witnesses. So, mga—kung hindi ako nagkakamali, mga 30 plus na common witnesses.” (These are common witnesses. So, if I’m not mistaken, there are over 30 common witnesses.)
While Duterte’s legal team maintains that cross-examining prosecution witnesses cannot replace the formal presentation of their own defense evidence, Alonto Adiong argued that their line of questioning has failed to shake the core allegations.
Though he commended the technical competence of the Vice President’s lawyers, Alonto Adiong maintained that the facts remain on the prosecution’s side.
“Well, unang-una kung babalikan niyo po ‘yung naging presentasyon ng prosecution, sa cross-examination, magaling, magaling ‘yung mga depensa. Magaling ‘yung mga abogado,” Alonto Adiong noted. “It’s just that wala lang talaga silang enough evidence to prove otherwise that the case of the prosecution does not hold water. Ganun lang ‘yun, eh.” (First of all, if you look back at the prosecution’s presentation during cross-examination, the defense was good—their lawyers are capable. It’s just that they simply don’t have enough evidence to prove that the prosecution’s case doesn’t hold water. It’s as simple as that.)