Weekly Highlight: Trial of Sara Duterte Clarifications Needed: Key Points to Understand in the Trial of Sara Duterte
Political interest or personal vendetta doesn't invalidate an impeachment trial. It's possible that politicians like BB Marcos and Martin Romualdez might want to impede Sara Duterte's competitive edge in 2028, with the Marcoses possibly retaliating against her threats on their life. However, these personal, questionable motives won't suffice to invalidate the impeachment as a constitutional tool for accountability.
Politics and personal interest can't be entirely purged from the impeachment process, just as charges against political rivals can't be completely free from self-serving, unpatriotic agendas.
A recent Octa Research survey, released on June 9, 2025, showed that nearly four in five Filipinos, or 78% of 1,200 respondents, support a trial for Duterte. Only 13% said she should not be tried, while 9% were unsure or did not answer. Support in Metro Manila reached 83%, while in Central Visayas, it was 89%.
VP Sara's guilt or innocence isn't the primary issue now. The allegations against her were initially raised during congressional hearings, tarnishing her reputation. She chose not to contest the charges, which led to four complaints of impeachment being filed, with 240 verified complainants on the last complaint, transmitted to the Senate.
Senator-judges have shown a desire to delay, if not abort, the trial. Some senator-judges don't even try to conceal their bias for VP Sara. The Senate, as an impeachment court, should have ordered the congressmen-prosecutors to provide the necessary information and didn't have to remand the complaint.
Legal issues have arisen from the beginning of the dispute, increasing in number as the trial approaches. Key disputes include:
- Thoroughness of the House's process, with the requirement that there should be no impeachment against the same person more than once a year.
- Whether an impeachment trial can cross over from one Congress to the next.
House prosecutors and the House itself imply that only one complaint out of four was actually transmitted to the Senate, addressing the issue of repeat impeachments. Regarding cross-over trials, it's crucial to ensure that a trial isn't halted due to a change in the Senate membership.
Should the same vote pattern displayed by the senator-judges in the Senate's initial vote to remand the complaint prevail in the voting on guilt or innocence after the trial, VP Sara could go unpunished. However, the senator-judges, who seem pro-Sara, might vote differently if evidence against her generates significant public pressure for conviction.
Vice President Duterte has stated that she wants the impeachment trial to proceed but filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to halt the trial.
If VP Sara and senator-judges aligned with or inclined to support her are confident of her acquittal, why try to prevent a trial that might uncover potentially damaging evidence? The trial could reveal evidence of hidden or inexplicable wealth, even if insufficient for a conviction, that could dent her reputation in the eyes of the 2028 electorate.
- Despite the potential involvement of politics and personal interest in the impeachment process, it's essential to uphold the constitutional tool of accountability as a means of ensuring justice, as shown in the case of VP Sara Duterte's trial.
- The impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte has been the subject of numerous legal issues and debates, including the thoroughness of the House's process and the possibility of cross-over trials, demonstrating the complexity of policy-and-legislation and general-news surrounding the case.
- As the impeachment trial progresses, the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, must remain impartial and ensure that personal biases do not sway the outcome of the trial, given the high stakes and potential impact on public opinion and Manila's political landscape in 2028.
