THE ORIGINAL ORDER PUTS THE ENTIRE PROSECUTION CASE FIRST

The pretrial order gave the prosecution 62 trial days to present evidence on all four impeachment articles. Duterte’s defense received 30 trial days, which would begin after prosecutors finished their entire case.

The prosecution started with Article IV. It completed its presentation in nine of the 11 days allotted for that charge, then moved to Article I on July 29.

This means Duterte’s lawyers may cross-examine prosecution witnesses as they testify, but their own witnesses and evidence will come later. Under the current order, the defense will begin its full presentation only after prosecutors have covered all four articles.

THE PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE COMPLETED ONE ARTICLE AT A TIME

The proposed order would have worked like this: prosecutors present Article IV, the defense answers Article IV, and both sides finish that charge before anyone moves to Article I.

Supporters said this would allow the defense to answer evidence while it was still fresh. It could also make the trial easier for the public to follow because the arguments and evidence for each charge would appear closer together.

The proposed arrangement would not remove any charge, witness, defense, or right to cross-examine. It would only change when the defense presents its own evidence.

It also would not automatically cut the number of witnesses or trial days. A different order may make the proceedings easier to follow without making each presentation shorter.

THE DEFENSE REFUSED TO CHANGE THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT

The prosecution formally agreed to the article-by-article plan on July 28. The defense declined and asked the court to retain the pretrial order.

Duterte’s lawyers argued that changing the sequence after the trial had begun would alter agreements already reached by both sides. They also raised due-process concerns about adding arrangements that were not included in the approved order.

The impeachment court then kept the prosecution-first format. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero announced that prosecutors would continue presenting all their evidence before the defense opened its own case.

The defense did not gain a permanent veto over all possible changes. The Senate has the sole constitutional power to try impeachment cases, and the impeachment court controls its proceedings.

For this proposal, however, the court sought an agreement from both sides. When that agreement did not happen, the existing order remained in force.

SENATOR-JUDGES CANNOT VOTE AFTER FINISHING ONLY ONE ARTICLE

An article-by-article presentation would not produce an article-by-article verdict while the rest of the trial was still underway.

The Senate’s impeachment rules say the trial of all impeachment articles must be completed before senator-judges vote on the final question. Voting then takes place separately for each article.

For example, finishing both sides’ presentations on Article IV would close the evidence for that charge. Senator-judges would still have to hear the remaining three articles before casting their votes.

That rule prevents an early verdict based on whichever article happens to come first. It also allows senator-judges to consider the complete case before deciding any charge.

ONE GUILTY VOTE ON ONE ARTICLE IS ENOUGH FOR CONVICTION

After all four articles have been tried, senator-judges will vote on each one separately.

The Constitution requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members for conviction. With 24 Senate seats, that means 16 guilty votes.

Duterte does not need to be convicted on all four articles. Reaching 16 guilty votes on one article is enough to convict and remove her from office.

The separate votes allow senator-judges to reject some accusations while accepting another. A senator may conclude that the evidence fails on the confidential-funds charge but reaches the required level on the threats charge, or the other way around.