(Opening statement of the Prosecution, delivered by Rep. Gerville Luistro, lead House Prosecutor, on Day 1 of the VP Sara Duterte impeachment trial at the Senate on 6 July 2026)

… Mga minamahal na kababayan, sa loob ng bulwagan o sa labas man, mga nakatutok sa television, sa cellphone o sa radyo, saang sulok man ng mundo, kayo naroroon. 

Maraming Pilipino ang nagtatanong ngayon? Bakit mahalaga ang paglilitis na ito? Ano ang kaugnayan ito sa buhay ng ordinaryong Pilipino? 

Lubos po naming nauunawaan ang mga tanong na yan. Sa katunayan, may isang driver na nagtatanong, paano sasapat ang kita sa pasada upang mapakain niya ang kanyang pamilya.

May isang OFW na nagtatanong, hanggang kailan kailangan lumayo upang mapaaral niya ang kanyang mga anak. May isang guro na nagtatanong paano pagkakasyahin ang kanyang sahod sa dami ng utang na hinuhulugan. May isang manggagawa na nagtatanong hanggang kailan magtitiis sa pansamantalang trabaho at kakarampot na sweldo. 

Sa unang tingin, maaring sabihin na malayo sa buhay nila ang paglilitis na ito.

Ngunit hindi. Hindi po, sapagkat ang usapin ngayon ay patungkol sa isang bagay na pag-aari nilang lahat: ang kanilang pera. Ang kanilang tiwala. Ang kanilang karapatang maningil ng panangutan mula sa mga pinununo na kanilang pinagkakatiwalaan. 

Kapag ang isang empleyado ay nagkamali ng paggamit ng pera ng kumpanya, siya ay pinagpapaliwanag. Kapag ang isang barangay treasurer hindi may paliwanag ang nawawalang pondo, siya ay iniimbestigahan. Kapag ang isang principal ay naglustay ng pera ng byaan, kahit limang libo lang yan, siya ay pinaparusahan. Natural lang na magtanong ang sambayanan kung ang ordinaryong Pilipino ay pinapanagot, bakit hindi ang pinakamakapangyarihan na opisyal ng pamahalaan? 

Ito ang dahilan kung bakit mahalga ang paglilitis na ito. Hindi upang maghiganti sa kalaban, hindi upang manalo sa politika, kundi upang sagutin ang isang tanong na napakahalaga sa kinabukasan ng ating Republika.

May saysay pa ba ang pananagutan sa ating bansa? Sapagkat ang kasong ito ay higit at lampas sa sinumang opisyal, higit at lampas sa anumang partido, hight at lampas sa alinmang administrasyon.”

Dokumento na hindi bumoboto, Records na walang partido

Your honors, the framers of the Constitution understood that there may come a day when extraordinary power would be entrusted to extraordinary office. They also understood that there may come a day when trust would be broken. And that is why they gave the House of Representatives the power to impeach and the Senate the duty to judge, not to punish political opponents, not to settle political scores, but to protect the Republic itself.

That is why the Constitution declares public office is a public trust. Ang kapangyarihan ay hindi pag-aari ng sinomang opisyal. Hiram lamang ito sa taongbayan.

At ito ang dahilan kung bakit naririto tayo ngayon. Your honors, the prosecution will present exactly what the Constitution requires;  Evidence, hindi chismis, hindi haka-haka, hindi propaganda, at lalong hindi soc-med narrative. Evidence. Official records. Financial documents. Government reports. Video recordings. Statements under oath. Independent findings of institutions created by law. 

Mga dokumento na hindi bumoboto. Mga records na walang partido. Mga katotohanan na walang kulay pangpolitika. 

Sa unang tingin, maaring magmukhang magkakahiwalay ang four Articles of Impeachment. Confidential funds. Unexplained wealth. Briberty and Corruption. Threat against constitutional order. 

But these are not four separate stories. These are four chapters of the same story. Story about power exercised without accountability. Story about public trust betrayed. Story about public office that stopped answering to the public.

Pera ng sambayanan

On the first Article of Impeachment, the evidence will show that more than P612M in confidential funds entrusted to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education were disbursed, transferred and liquidated under circumstances that cannot withstand scrutiny. 

Six hundred twelve million pesos. Hindi ito pera ng gobyerno, pera ito ng sambayanan, pera ng manggagawa, pera ng magsasaka, pera ng OFW, pera ng guro, pera ng bawat Pilipino na nagbabayad ng buwis at nagtitiwala na gagamitin ito nang tama. 

The evidence will show liquidation reports supported by questionable documents. The evidence will show acknowledgement receipts bearing names government records could not verify. Names that transformed accountability into a mockery. Pananagutan na naging kalokuhan. Names that insulted the intelligence of the Filipino people: Mary Grace Piattos. Milky Secuya. Kokoy Villamin. 

Not wealth but explanation 

On the second Article of Impeachment, the evidence will show financial transactions involving billions of pesos associated with the respondent and her husband. Billions, hindi milyon, billion. At habang milyon-milyon Pilipino ang nagtratrabaho at nag-iipon buong buhay upang magkaroon ng sariling bahay, makapagpaaral ng mga anak, magkaroon ng konting siguridad para sa pamilya, aba, bilyon-bilyong piso ang dumaan sa mga bank accounts na hindi maipaliwanag nang maayos.

This article is not about wealth. This is about accountability. This is about explanation. If wealth was lawfully acquired, where is the lawful explanation? If transactions were proper, where is the complete accounting?

If numbers truly add up,  then why do they refuse to reconcile? 

Not simply about envelopes

On the third article of impeachment, the evidence will show bribery, graft and corruption through the distribution of cash payments and monetary gifts to officials under the supervision of the respondent. 

This article is not simply about envelopes. This is about institution. This is about whether loyalty was purchased rather than earned. 

Government cannot function if loyalty is purchased instead of earned.

Kapag nabibili ang katapatan, nawawala ang integridad. At kapag nabibili ang opisyal, nabubudol ang bayan. 

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is where the conduct allegedly occurred: in the Department of Education. Tama po. Sa DepEd. The institution entrusted with teaching future generations honesty, responsibility, integrity.

Democracy ends when violence begins

On the fourth article of impeachment, the evidence will show culpable violation of the Constitution, high crime, betrayal of public trust through conduct that threatens constitutional order. 

Among all allegations before this court, none strikes more directly at the heart of constitutional order than this one. Ito na po ang pinakamatindi.

And unlike in many cases which depends upon competing accounts, this evidence comes substantially from the respondent’s own recorded public statements. 

The court will see them. The court will hear them. The court will judge them. 

Public officials may disagree. We may criticize one another.

They may compete fiercely for power. That is democracy. But democracy ends when violence begins.

Sa kasaysayan ng ating republika, walang Bise-Presidente na may kaibigan na hitman. Ngayon lang. Walang Bise-Presidente na nagpapapatay ng Pangulo.

Ngayon lang. Walang Bise-Presidente na handang magpapatay para lamang makaupo sa pwesto. Ngayon lang.

The Constitution provides many means on how to resolve political conflict. Election, legislation, public debate, judicial review, and even impeachment. 

But it does not permit threats. It does not permit violence. It does not permit people entrusted with power to place themselves above constitutional restraints. 

Your honors, at the center of this case lies a simple question, perhaps the most important to any republic: When the people entrust power to a public official, does the public official remain accountable to the people, or do the people become accountable to the public official? 

Public office is merely borrowed

The Constitution’s answer is very clear. Power belongs to the people. Public office is merely borrowed, and every borrowed power carries with it the obligation to account for its use. 

If a barangay treasurer must account for public fund, then so must the Vice-President. If an ordinary public servant can be investigated, then so can the highest officials of the government.

If ordinary citizen is expected to obey the rules, then surely those who govern them must obey them first. Otherwise, what lessons do we teach our children? That there is law for the powerful and another for everyone else? That accountability exists only for the weak. That public office grants immunity against accountability. 

Your Honors, this is not the republic envisioned by the Constitution.

This is not the republic deserved by the Filipino people. Therefore, the prosecution asks only this. Look at the evidence. Listen to the witnesses. Examine the records. Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Judge this case by the Constitution, by evidence

Judge this case not by politics, not by popularity, not by fear, not by loyalty. Judge this case by the Constitution. Judge this case by the evidence.

Years from now, future generations will not remember today’s political alliances. They will not remember today’s headlines. They will not remember today’s slogans.

What they will remember is when accountability was tested, the institutions of the republic stood firm. They will remember only one thing: what this court did when the Constitution called. 

Future generations will not ask how powerful the respondent was. They will not ask how loud the political debate became. But they will ask one thing:  When the Constitution called, did the republic answer? 

Your Honors, this is that moment. This is the moment the Constitution anticipated. This is the moment when accountability must mean exactly what it says. This is the moment when public office must truly remain a public trust. This is the moment when the republic must demonstrate that laws are applied equally to the powerful and the powerless alike.

At matapos marinig ang mga saksi, matapos masuri ang mga dokumento, matapos matimbang lahat ng ebidensya, ang Prosekusyon ay naniniwala at naninindigan, isa lamang ang maliwanag na konklusyon. 

Ang tiwalang ipinaggaloob ay nilabag. Ang kapangyarihang ipinahiram ay inabuso. At ang Constitution mismo ang humihingi ng pananagutan. 

Amid the clarity of the mandate of the Constitution, political noise continues, political squabbles continue, political division continues.

Please, let me conclude. Salus populi est suprema lex. The welfare of the people is the supreme law.