Sara Duterte's impeachment trial: A glorious burden
“I DO SOLEMNLY swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines…”
Might as well begin this piece with these words reminding the cast of characters in this grand, historic impeachment trial, which will start on Monday, July 6, of their duty to tell the truth and nothing but the truth—from Vice President Sara Duterte and her defense team to the House prosecutors, and of course, the senator-judges.
Both the House and the Defense panels have publicly declared they were ready for the trial. The House spokesmen even said they had prepared since they filed their first impeachment case against Duterte, which the Supreme Court effectively invalidated in July 2025. How prepared are they, indeed?
Best lawyers
The prosecutors are the people who hold the key, who keep the pieces of evidence, and hopefully, who will surprise the public with the best of legal arguments in the much-awaited trial. Most of them are politicians, except, of course, academic Chel Diokno, son of 1944 bar topnotcher Jose W. Diokno. Like his father, Diokno is a longtime human rights lawyer.
The defense panel is composed of private lawyers, most of them showing formidable experience in court litigations, especially, judging from word-of-mouth accolades in the legal community, or among peers: lead counsel Sheila Sison and Sigfrid Fortun, once dubbed as best lawyer money can buy, next only to the late Justice Secretary Estelito Mendoza. Good counsel has a price.
Well, they make a living out of lawyering. They are not here, in the words of the great defense lawyer, the late Dean Antonio Coronel, to defend plunderers and murderers, or anyone unpopular. They are here to uphold the Constitution, because even the guilty, Coronel said, “have the right to a proper defense.”
We expect the defense panel to keep the prosecution in check, including their excesses and grandstanding.
Judges prepared?
We hope that the judges are also prepared; their legal advisers had briefed them well enough. But indeed, while some of them had previous experiences in similar trials, we could hardly sleep over concerns about the competence of some of them.
A competent, prepared interrogator can extract a confession. Like it or not, aside from being a battle of evidence and counter-evidence, it is going to be a battle of lawyers and law schools.
Chief Prosecutor Luistro is a product of the University of Batangas and was admitted to the Bar in 2002. He worked with former Batangas Rep. Nani Perez, a legal luminary.
De Lima is older and has an impressive credential. She graduated salutatorian from San Beda College in 1985, placing No. 8 in the bar.
Diokno took up law at Northern Illinois Law University in 1986. He didn’t list in his resume the many legal human rights battles he fought in court all these many years.
Chief Defense lawyer Sison is a product of San Sebastian College, where she was a consistent Dean’s Lister. She graduated Valedictorian and was admitted to the Bar in 2014. Her resume described her as a “fierce litigator” and that she “roars in the litigation arena.”
Fortun is a product of the University of the Philippines and was admitted to the Bar in 1984. His resume is so modestly written, but that silence, low-key profile makes him more interesting. He is definitely the man to watch in the defense panel.
We could only wish Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Joker Arroyo were still alive, especially Santiago, who could lecture lawyers on law and the Constitution; especially Arroyo, who shot down a pretender in the impeachment court that silence, or a poor legal argument with his now famous line “that’s the refuge of the uninitiated” in the trial of President Joseph Estrada. Or, “work harder next time.”
To be sure, it is not easy for the House team to prosecute Duterte, now facing four articles of impeachment, and for the senators to try someone occupying a higher office, someone more popular than all of them combined according to the surveys. Still, they have a duty to do what they have to do.
Endgame
Where is this impeachment trial heading? The endgame, of course, is conviction for the prosecution and acquittal for the defense. Either way, it is not going to be a walk in the park.
For all the possible hits and misses, for all the would-be political gains and losses out of it, prosecuting and trying Duterte is a glorious burden.
To do so, let the cast of characters always bear in mind their oaths in the subsequent days of trial.
Leonen’s lecture
Might as well take a few tips from former UP law dean, now senior Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the man who penned the Supreme Court decision dismissing the first impeachment complaint against Duterte. The man with a small voice has the loudest pieces of advice for the prosecution, the defense, and the senators.
Excerpts:
“The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure, but with political characteristics. It may be sui generis, but it is not a purely political proceeding. This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases, applies to the entire impeachment process.”
“It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law.
“We cannot concede the sobriety of fairness inherent in due process of law to the passions of a political moment. Our fundamental law is clear: The end does not justify the means.
“We understand our history. We have learned that in the past, momentary desires to do what is convenient and concede means to ends have inadvertently created precedents that weaken the succor of law for those who dissent, or those at our society’s margins, or those who may have fallen out of grace from the powers that be.
“We have learned that the clash of political interests in the past, often disguised by noble intentions, has obscured the need to address the real problems of corruption, inequality, poverty, and disempowerment faced by our people.
“We will not allow that to happen again. We will not hesitate to declare what is legal, just, and right for our people.
We hope that the prosecution panel learned some lessons in the first impeachment case so that it would do better this time.
Will the trial be Duterte's 'career-killer'?
July 6 marks the trial of the second impeachment complaint against Duterte, the second since her 2022 UniTeam with President Marcos collapsed in 2023, since the initiatives to amend the 1987 Constitution failed to materialize.
The beginning of the trial reminded us of what Winston Churchill said about politics and how to survive it. “Politics,” Churchill said, “are almost as exciting and as dangerous as war. Except that in war, you can be killed only once; in politics, many times.”
In the scheme of things, Duterte is simply a spare tire, but a great contender in the 2028 elections. And this is probably the reason, to some of her supporters, why the prosecution has been supercilious in hauling her to the impeachment court.
The first case was ditched; now the prosecution panel is going big-time to go for the kill.
We remember the late ex-future American presidential winnable, Ted Kennedy, then a US senator, when an accident involving him and a staff member happened on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts, United States, sometime in July 1969.
The accident killed his staff, but his failure to ably handle the accident (he reportedly abandoned the victim) and the failure to fully explain it to a court with an eager public watching decimated his ambition to become US president.
Chappaquiddick was called a “career killer” and it hounded him, his faulty judgment call years after the accident.
Will this trial become Duterte's “career killer”? The answers are enough to make people stop and watch the impeachment.
Evidence first
In the end, the impeachment case is about explaining judgment calls, explaining the use of some P125 million in confidential funds allegedly in 11 days, and the DepEd funds to bribe certain people, the private wealth, and the threats to Marcos.
Whether these things really happened and why must be fully explained, along with what the law says about the alleged offenses. The prosecution and the defense had better be good in prosecuting or defending Duterte in the next three months. The public is watching.
Until then, it is best for political pundits to stop talking about their unsolicited views on whether or not the Senate has the number to convict Duterte, or whether or not the right number is 16, or what 2/3 of the Senate means.
It is still premature. That is putting the cart before the horse. That is unnecessary pressure.
Let us talk about the pieces of evidence first. Let us not talk about the numbers even without seeing the evidence, as if only the numbers matter.
All other matters only reinforce Churchill’s view on politics and war.
Let the public see the pieces of evidence first. Let us talk about judgment later.
In a classroom, perform first, and the grade will have to come later. Don’t ask for a high grade even before showing your stuff.
In the words of Associate Justice Leonen: “There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. This is what the Rule of Just Law means. This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.”
Let it be.
