QUEZON CITY (MindaNews / 12 July 2026) — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte opened on July 6, marking the first time a sitting Vice President has faced an impeachment trial in Philippine history. Duterte did not attend the opening session and was represented by her legal team.

Duterte faces four impeachment charges involving alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery, and grave threats.

The first day focused on procedural issues, particularly the selection of the presiding officer.

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano questioned the rule allowing another senator to preside over the impeachment court, arguing that the Senate President should lead the proceedings.

The Senate later voted 12-8 to elect Senator Chiz Escudero as presiding officer. Escudero emphasized the importance of impartiality and clarified that 16 votes are required for conviction.

A word of caution, indeed of correction, is in order on the voting threshold. Escudero’s pronouncement that conviction requires 16 votes, or two-thirds of all 24 members of the Senate, is not final, and it is a mistake to treat it as settled doctrine.

Senator Panfilo Lacson exposed its provisional character on the trial’s second day when he pointedly asked whether the pronouncement was mere “legal opinion, or does it constitute a ruling by the impeachment court.”

Escudero’s own answer gave the game away: the threshold stands, he conceded, only because no senator-judge objected to or appealed it. That is the crucial point. 

A ruling of the chair is not a ruling of the court. The senator-judges, by a simple majority vote, retain the power to overturn it, and with the number of sitting judges now reduced by detention, suspension, and flight, the question of whether two-thirds should be reckoned from all members or only from those actually able to sit remains very much alive.

Nor should anyone count on the Supreme Court to rescue the 16-vote reading. Escudero himself called the matter “a justiciable controversy,” but the Court is under no obligation to agree. It can, and in my view properly should, refrain from ruling on the internal voting rules of a co-equal impeachment court, treating the matter as a political question committed to the Senate’s sole discretion.

The threshold, in short, will be decided where the Constitution lodged it: in the impeachment court itself, by majority vote of its members.

In another article, I have observed that the Senate has over judicialized the process. They need to step back from this and go back to the original intent of the Constitution of an impeachment trial conducted by a jury of peers, akin to a people’s tribunal and not a copycat of the Supreme Court, from their robes to the rules.

The prosecution makes its case on Article 4

The prosecution then began presenting evidence, focusing first on the allegation of grave threats. It introduced a recorded statement attributed to Duterte and called NBI Agent John Mark Calilung to authenticate the video. Calilung testified that forensic examination found no signs of editing or manipulation.

The defense challenged the evidence, arguing that the witness could only verify the recording’s authenticity, not Duterte’s intent or the meaning of her statement. After questioning by lawyers and senator-judges, the court approved the subpoena of Duterte’s executive secretary, Zuleika Lopez, as a possible witness.

The first three days established the main battle lines: the prosecution’s argument of accountability and evidence versus the defense’s claim of constitutional and legal weaknesses in the case.

During the first three days of the trial, both the prosecution and the defense focused on shaping the narrative of the case before the Senate impeachment court. The prosecution worked to establish the proceedings as a matter of public accountability, while the defense attempted to weaken the case by questioning its constitutional foundation and legal sufficiency.

The House prosecution’s main achievement in the opening days was framing the case as an issue of accountability rather than political conflict. Led by Gerville Luistro and her team, the prosecution emphasized that its allegations would be supported by official documents, government records, financial reports, sworn testimonies, and institutional findings. Their goal was to convince the senator-judges that the case was based on evidence and constitutional principles rather than speculation or partisan motives.

The prosecution focused on the four impeachment articles, particularly the allegations involving confidential funds, unexplained wealth, abuse of power, and grave threats.

Prosecutors argued that the issue was not only whether funds were legally released but whether they were properly used, documented, and aligned with their intended purpose. They also presented transparency and public trust as key standards expected of a Vice President.

However, the prosecution’s challenge was that the early proceedings marked only the beginning of its evidence presentation. The strength of its case will depend on whether future witnesses, documents, and testimonies can clearly prove the allegations.

Meanwhile, the defense’s strongest achievement was raising questions about the legitimacy of the impeachment process itself. Defense lawyers argued that impeachment must strictly follow constitutional requirements and should not become a political weapon against an elected official. They cited previous legal challenges and emphasized procedural issues.

The defense also challenged the substance of the accusations, arguing that government procedures were followed in matters involving confidential funds and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving wrongdoing. By stressing that accusations must be supported by strong evidence, the defense aimed to create reasonable doubt among the senator-judges.

The first days of the trial thus established the central battle: the prosecution seeks to prove abuse of public trust, while the defense seeks to show that the case is politically motivated and unsupported by sufficient evidence.

A battle of narratives

Beyond the legal arguments, the first three days revealed a battle over the public narrative.

The prosecution’s message: “This is a case about accountability and proving whether public funds and power were abused.”

The defense’s message: “This is a politically motivated attempt to remove an elected official through a flawed process.”

Both sides are trying to define the trial before the full presentation of evidence begins.

In the coming days, the trial is expected to focus on the continued presentation of evidence and witnesses by the House prosecution panel. After beginning with the alleged grave threats, prosecutors are expected to expand their case by presenting documents and testimonies related to the other impeachment charges, including the alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and betrayal of public trust.

A major upcoming development is the testimony of Zuleika Lopez, Executive Secretary of the Office of the Vice President, after the Senate approved the prosecution’s request for a subpoena. Her testimony may provide details about the operations, decisions, and communications within the Vice President’s office. The prosecution is also expected to call government officials, auditors, and investigators to explain financial records, official documents, and other evidence supporting its allegations.

The defense, meanwhile, will likely continue challenging the prosecution’s evidence by questioning witness credibility, the interpretation of statements, and whether the alleged acts meet the constitutional grounds for impeachment. It is expected to argue that some accusations are politically motivated and insufficient for removal from office.

As the trial moves forward, the senator-judges will determine whether the evidence presented is strong enough to justify conviction. The next stages will be crucial in deciding whether the prosecution can prove abuse of power and betrayal of public trust, or whether the defense can establish reasonable doubt.

Voices worth hearing: Renee Co and Luke Espiritu

Two voices outside the courtroom help sharpen our understanding of what is at stake. In The Wonderer Podcast, which I host, we hear these voices.

House prosecution spokesperson and Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co has insisted that the trial is about the people, not personalities. “Para po malinaw, ang biktima dito ay ang taumbayan,” she said in a press briefing, arguing that the real victims are Filipinos deprived of classrooms, scholarships, and health services because public money went to confidential funds instead. Co has likewise accused the defense of a “3D strategy” of drama, delay, and derailment, citing its barrage of objections on the trial’s second day and the Vice President’s Senate appearance without actual participation in the proceedings.

Even before the trial opened, Co pushed back on claims that impeachment is futile given the politics of the Senate.

Accountability, she said, is never futile, and the youth should not remain mere observers of the process. In her words, “this is about the kind of political culture we normalize, tolerate and pass on.” Her panel has encouraged watch parties, live commentaries, and community discussions to make the proceedings accessible to ordinary Filipinos.

Labor leader and lawyer Luke Espiritu, for his part, has defended the integrity of the process itself. When talk surfaced of a breakaway trial supposedly led by the Cayetano bloc, he rejected it outright, stressing that “the Senate expresses its will through numbers” and that no minority faction can act for the whole institution. Espiritu also argued that the trial can proceed so long as a quorum is present, because the Senate cannot be paralyzed by senators who refuse to perform their functions. He warned, however, that a thinly attended trial could damage public perception of its legitimacy.

Taken together, Co and Espiritu converge on a point this column has been building toward: the trial ultimately belongs to the people. Co calls the public, especially the youth, to active engagement. Espiritu reminds us that institutions must be protected from both paralysis and manipulation, and that legitimacy in the public eye matters as much as legal correctness. Both perspectives strengthen the case for vigilant public participation.

Using a Mindanao lens

For Mindanao, this trial is not a distant spectacle unfolding in the halls of the Senate. Sara Duterte is the highest national official our island has produced in this generation, a daughter of Davao who carried the hopes and votes of millions of Mindanawons.

Whatever the outcome, the trial will shape how Mindanao’s leadership is perceived, how our region relates to the national government, and how the next generation of Mindanawon leaders understands the demands of public office.

Precisely because of this, we in Mindanao should watch the proceedings carefully and critically.

We must resist two temptations.

The first is to dismiss the trial outright as an attack on Mindanao, reading every charge as Manila’s persecution of one of our own.

The second is to prejudge the Vice President as guilty before the evidence is fully heard. Both shortcuts insult the intelligence of Mindanawons and reduce a constitutional process to mere political theater.

The deeper issue at stake is accountability, and accountability belongs to the people.

Confidential funds are public funds, drawn from the taxes of farmers in Bukidnon, fisherfolk in the Zamboanga Peninsula, workers in Davao, and traders in Cotabato. When questions are raised about how such funds were used, every citizen has the right, indeed the duty, to demand clear answers, whoever the official may be and wherever they come from.

This is why public participation is necessary, not optional. An impeachment trial is a political and constitutional exercise, and the senator-judges are ultimately accountable to the electorate.

Citizens must follow the testimonies, scrutinize the evidence, discuss the arguments in their communities, schools, and parishes, and make their views known to their senators. A disengaged public invites either a whitewash or a railroading. An engaged public keeps the process honest.

Mindanao has long demanded that the national government take our region seriously. Watching this trial vigilantly, and insisting that it be decided on evidence rather than on politics, is one way of showing that Mindanawons take democracy seriously too. The verdict will be rendered by 24 senator-judges, but the judgment of history will be rendered by all of us.

(Mindaviews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Dean Antonio Gabriel La Viña is from Cagayan de Oro and is a professor of law, philosophy, politics and governance in several universities, including in Mindanao. He has been a human rights lawyer for 36 years. He is currently the managing partner of La Viña Zarate and Associates, a member of the permanent court of arbitration in The Hague, and chair of the Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy department of the Philippine Judicial Academy.
Dean Tony is founding president of the Movement Against Disinformation and the founding chair of the Mindanao Climate Justice Resource Facility and the Mindanao Center for Scholarships, Sports, and Spirituality.)