Vice President Sara Duterte's sole legal strategy in dealing with her impeachment complaint is simply to avoid trial by seeking the complaint's outright dismissal.

Thus, said the House prosecution team in the reply it sent to the Senate impeachment court on Friday afternoon, June 27. The reply was for Vice President Duterte's earlier ad cautelam answer to the court on the House-endorsed articles of impeachment

“It is obvious from a simple reading of the answer ad cautelam – which relies on misleading claims and baseless procedural objections – that the only legal strategy of the defense is to have the case dismissed and avoid trial,” read the concluding remarks of the reply signed by lead prosecutor 4Ps Party-list Rep. Marcelino Nonoy Libanan.

Prosecution panel spokesman, lawyer Antonio Bucoy showed journalists a copy of the reply during a press conference Friday. He said the reply was filed a day before the deadline.

''The prayer of the prosecution is to deny the dismissal [of the impeachment complant] and proceed with the trial,'' Bucoy told reporters. He added that the defense was merely looking for a ''short cut''.

In its final prayer, the House prosecution asked the Senate to “render a judgment of conviction'', decree Duterte’s “removal from the Office of the Vice President'', and order her “perpetual disqualification from holding any public office in the Republic of the Philippines''.

In Duterte’s answer ad cautelam, she raised procedural objections and asked the Senate to dismiss the impeachment case.

The House prosecutors say this approach reflects the Vice President’s unwillingness to confront the serious charges against her, noting that “no prayer for acquittal was sought – only a dismissal of the case''.

Prosecutors stressed that this request for dismissal should not be countenanced, as the 1987 Constitution itself mandates that once the articles of impeachment are transmitted, “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed''.

The seven articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate by the House way back on Feb. 5.

The solon-prosecutors noted that the severity of the charges – which include plotting assassinations, misappropriating public funds and engaging in corruption – require no less than a full and transparent trial. This should leave ''no room for technical evasion'', they said.

“These articles of impeachment highlight respondent Duterte’s unfitness for public office. The Honorable Impeachment Court should reject respondent Duterte’s desire for a dismissal without trial,” the prosecution team wrote in its reply.

Prosecutors emphasized that allowing Duterte to escape trial would undermine the principles of democratic governance and public accountability. “A trial is not only warranted but necessary to reinforce justice… and affirm that no individual – regardless of rank or influence – stands above the law.''

The reply also called out Duterte’s filing of a nearly identical petition before the Supreme Court (SC) as a case of forum-shopping. “The answer ad cautelam is a mere repetition of the allegations contained in respondent’s petition in the [SC] .''

They warned that Duterte’s strategy is to gamble on a more favorable ruling from a different forum, an act which “must be denied on the ground of forum-shopping''.

Forum-shopping, the prosecutors argued, is a legal violation that occurs when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

The reply asserted that the plain text of the Constitution “forecloses the filing of a motion to dismiss before the Honorable impeachment court''.

They argued that Duterte’s claims, even when framed as affirmative defenses, amounted to a prohibited motion to dismiss and should be rejected outright.