Vice President Sara Duterte — or at least through her lawyers — will face the trial of the century: her impeachment proceedings at the Senate.

She never appeared when the House of Representatives was holding its hearings. After she was impeached in May and the Senate held a pre-trial conference the following month, Duterte also chose to snub the upper chamber.

She had a choice not to, since she sent her team of lawyers led by litigator Sheila Sison. And for the upcoming trial’s commencement scheduled on Monday, July 6, it’s also unlikely that the public will see the Vice President during the presentation of evidence against her.

“Parati natin sinasabi riyan kung kinakailangan. But sa ngayon, hindi pa natin masasabi kung kailan ‘yon, kung mangyayari ‘yon,” defense spokesperson Michael Poa told reporters on July 18. (We always say she will appear if needed. But for now, we cannot say when that would be, if that will happen.)

Either way, the trial will push through as scheduled despite Duterte’s absence.

What the public will see though is how her team of lawyers will defend her against the House’s allegations contained in the articles of impeachment, and how her counsels will cast doubt on the prosecutors’ evidence.

Preview of arguments, evidence

There are four articles of impeachment approved by the House against Duterte: questions on the use of confidential funds (first); unexplained wealth (second); bribery of Department of Education officials (third); and grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family (fourth).

The prosecution asked for 62 days to present their evidence against the Vice President and prove their charges in the articles of impeachment.

The Duterte camp requested for at least 30 trial days to present their evidence to counter the allegations in the articles of impeachment.

The Vice President has raised five issues to defend herself:

• Whether the evidence gathered by the House justice committee during its mini-trial and which were not included in the complaints should be excluded from the records.
• Whether the allegations in the articles of impeachment constitute impeachable offenses under the 1987 Constitution.
• Whether the allegations in the articles of impeachment and materials related to them “referring to periods when respondent was neither in public office nor holding any impeachable office” are irrelevant so they should be removed from the records.
• Whether the articles violate Duterte’s constitutional rights.
• Whether there is competent and credible evidence enough to hold Duterte liable for any of the charges in the articles of impeachment.

Apart from a pile of documentary evidence, the Vice President’s camp will also present witnesses to refute the House’s allegations.

Among them is Ramil Madriaga, a self-confessed gunman of the Vice President. He claimed in his affidavit that he allegedly delivered money to personalities related to Duterte.

Duterte also listed former executive secretary Lucas Bersamin and budget secretary Amenah Pangandaman as witnesses, likely to disprove the allegations related to confidential funds and the budget.

The Vice President also listed National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director Melvin Matibag and former NBI chief Jaime Santiago possibly to disprove claims related to Duterte’s alleged threats against the Marcos family. The bureau launched an investigation into the alleged threats in 2024.

Careful, calculated moves

Based on their demeanor and motions, Duterte’s defense team appears to be careful and making calculated moves.

Duterte made Poa, a former Department of Education official, the defense’s spokesperson.

He is amicable to the media, but provides safe answers when asked about pressing questions related to the Vice President or their legal strategy. Poa as the defense’s frontliner was an interesting choice given his skills in facing the media.

As for their strategy, the defense team is not vocal about their opinion on certain impeachment matters, like questions pertaining to the conviction threshold and related concerns.

“Hindi kami maka-comment kasi wala pa namang posisyon ‘yong (We cannot comment on that because there was no position from the) Senate sitting as an impeachment court regarding that threshold. Of course we have our position, but we’ll have to wait for the Senate first. I think it’s premature for us to say anything at this point,” Poa said on June 22.

Given the composition of the Senate (24 elected senators), 16 affirmative votes will be needed to convict Duterte to fulfill the two-thirds requirement.

But given the absences of two senators — Senator Jinggoy Estrada has been detained due to his flood control-related plunder case, while Senator Bato dela Rosa has gone into hiding to avoid an International Criminal Court arrest warrant — the House prosecutors have floated the idea that the threshold for conviction could be lowered.

A two-thirds vote to convict the Vice President will require a base count of only 22 senators (not 24), the thinking goes. This translates to only 14 — instead of 16 — senators voting for conviction.

Although the defense team appeared to be careful in their pronouncements publicly, things are different behind closed doors. At least during the pre-trial, Duterte’s lawyers used all legal means to challenge moves they anticipated would not be beneficial to their client.

For example, Duterte’s lawyers refused to mark evidence jointly with the prosecution. This process during the pre-trial conference provides for a more organized presentation of evidence during the actual trial itself.

A joint marking could have saved time, said the prosecution, but Duterte’s camp shot down the idea.

“Pero pinilit pa rin po nila na mag-marka sila ng sarili nilang dokumento samantalang parehas lang naman ang nilalaman — content nitong sa prosecution, sa defense, at saka doon sa impeachment court,” said House prosecutor and Manila 3rd District Representative Joel Chua on June 25.

(But they insisted on marking their own evidence despite the contents being the same — same for the prosecution, defense, and impeachment court.)

Play Video

What’s in the BIR box?

The defense’s strategy could also be gleaned from how it deals with the motions being raised by the prosecution.

A sealed box containing Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, is possible evidence against her. In April, the House’s justice committee voted against the opening of the box during the hearing, citing possible legal issues.

The sealed box was then delivered to the Senate, along with the articles of impeachment, after Duterte was impeached. On June 24, House prosecutors asked the Senate to open the box and mark the evidence that it contained.

Duterte’s camp, however, opposed it and filed a comment before the impeachment court. The pre-trial concluded on June 25 with the box left sealed and unmarked. As of writing, the impeachment court has yet to rule on the motion of the House.

In their comment, Duterte’s defense team said they have no objections to the opening of the BIR box, provided it was done in confidential session.

“It must be made clear that the opening and pre-marking shall not, in any way, be construed as admission of the legality of the BIR submission to the committee on justice vis-à-vis prohibition of disclosure of confidential and private data,” Duterte’s lawyers said in their comment.

Still on evidence, Duterte’s lawyers, as much as possible, also do not want private prosecutors questioning their witnesses during the trial. For them, it’s the job of House prosecutors.

“The defense submits that only one counsel from each party should be allowed to speak during the examination of witnesses and that it must be the public prosecutors who should take the lead in the examination of their own witnesses, especially since the public prosecutors had taken pains to announce before the media their lead prosecutor, and their assisting private prosecutors,” the defense team said.

As the trial day draws near, Poa said their team is all set for the trial of the century.

“Depende naman ‘yan sa ebidensya and the public is swayed by whatever evidence. Lalo na ‘pag malakas ang ebidensya na ipapakita mo, whether may sala or walang pagkakasala ang respondent,” said Poa during a DZBB interview on July 3. (It depends on the evidence and the public is swayed by whatever evidence. Especially if your evidence is strong, whether the respondent is guilty or not.)

“We’re ready to go to trial then, and we’re ready to go to trial now,” he added. – Rappler.com