THE House prosecution panel in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte has announced its intention to call Duterte herself as a witness after it finishes presenting evidence for all four Articles of Impeachment.
The move was disclosed by private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan during the 23rd day of the trial, signalling a major shift in the prosecution’s strategy as it seeks to place the Vice President’s own explanation at the center of the proceedings.
Kapunan clarified that the prosecution was not immediately requesting the Senate Impeachment Court to subpoena Duterte. Instead, the panel intends to complete its presentation of evidence first before deciding on the formal request for her appearance. She emphasized that Duterte’s testimony would be considered at the conclusion of the presentation of all impeachment articles.
‘At the end of all of these articles, we reserve the right to present the Vice President herself,’ Kapunan told the court.
The announcement came after discussions among public and private prosecutors regarding the direction of their case. Following their review, the prosecution decided to discontinue the presentation of the remaining witnesses originally planned for the article involving alleged misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds. The decision effectively shortened the prosecution’s planned witness presentation for that portion of the case.
Although no formal motion has been filed, defense lawyer Sheila Sison expressed opposition, invoking constitutional rights, after the prosecution expressed an intent to potentially call Duterte as a witness.
Sison quoted Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, asserting that the respondent has a fundamental right against ‘testimonial compulsion’ or testifying against oneself.
She added that the prohibition against testimonial compulsion is designed to prevent the recurrence of oppressive practices.
10 of 27 witnesses
THE prosecution initially identified 27 witnesses for the confidential funds article. According to Kapunan, 10 witnesses had already appeared before the court, while agreements and stipulations involving two other witnesses made their personal appearances unnecessary. The remaining 15 witnesses, including those scheduled to testify on that hearing day, would no longer be presented.
‘After a long meeting last night and towards this morning, just before this hearing, the prosecution, both public and private prosecutors, have decided to… forego your honors, not only with the witnesses subpoenaed for today, but with all the remaining 15 witnesses,’ Kapunan said.
‘In lieu of presenting 15 other witnesses, we will be presenting the Vice President herself,’ Kapunan stated. However, she later clarified that this would not happen immediately and would only be considered after the prosecution completes the presentation of all four impeachment articles.
Among those affected by the decision were Police Maj. Jovelyn Magay, Sunshine Fajarda, and Bresilio Sabaldan, who had been scheduled to appear before the impeachment court. Kapunan confirmed that their testimonies would no longer be part of the prosecution’s presentation for the confidential funds allegations.
Explaining the change in strategy, Kapunan argued that the evidence already presented by witnesses and documents pointed towards the need to hear directly from Duterte. She stated that the testimonies and records introduced during the proceedings connected various issues under examination to the vice president, making her own response relevant to the case.
Kapunan used a chess analogy to describe the relationship between the witnesses and the subject of the allegations, comparing the different pieces of evidence to chess pieces that ultimately point towards one accountable individual. She also highlighted testimony from Land Bank of the Philippines witnesses, which the prosecution said established the existence and withdrawal of confidential funds.
Potential testimony
THE prosecution maintained that Duterte’s potential testimony would not be limited to the confidential funds allegations. Kapunan explained that her appearance could also be relevant to the other impeachment articles involving alleged grave threats, unexplained wealth, and bribery. These issues remain part of the broader accusations being considered by the impeachment court.
As the trial moves forward, the prosecution is preparing to present its case on unexplained wealth, which it expects to require more time compared with the bribery allegations. House lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro explained that the prosecution’s pre-trial planning showed a larger number of witnesses and documentary evidence would be needed for the unexplained wealth article.
‘I think it is reflected in our pre-trial brief that the prosecution requested more trial days for the unexplained wealth case compared to the bribery case,’ Luistro said, explaining that additional evidence would be required for the Article II charges compared with the bribery allegations.
The unexplained wealth allegation focuses on claims that Duterte accumulated assets allegedly disproportionate to her declared income and failed to fully disclose certain financial interests in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. The prosecution plans to examine financial documents, including bank records, tax-related information, and other materials, as part of its presentation.
Luistro emphasized that the decision to present unexplained wealth ahead of bribery does not indicate that one article is stronger than another. ‘These are four equally strong articles of impeachment,’ she said, explaining that the order was adjusted based on witness availability and other practical considerations.
The Senate impeachment court also reminded the prosecution that it would not immediately consider Article I completely closed because additional witnesses could still be called if necessary. The court explained that it would determine whether further testimony would be required after reviewing the evidence presented by both sides.
The prosecution accepted the court’s guidance while maintaining its reservation to call Duterte and an amicus curiae who could assist the court regarding constitutional issues involving impeachment, public officers, and public accountability.