Second of a four-part series
LAST week, we left the Deegong in The Hague, before an institution he could neither appoint nor intimidate. This week, we turn to Vice President Sara Duterte before the Senate, where her impeachment trial has taken a sharp turn.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) judges crimes under international law. The Senate judges fitness for office. Its verdict combines constitutional duty, evidence, politics and senatorial arithmetic, depending, as always, on who has the numbers.
Now the prosecution has narrowed down its case to one article. Three others have been withdrawn. The crescendo has acquired a procedural complication.
3 charges leave the stage
On Oct. 13, the impeachment court approved the withdrawal of charges involving confidential funds, bribery and threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House speaker Martin Romualdez. Article 2 remains: alleged unexplained wealth, inaccurate asset declarations and prohibited business interests.
Mary Grace Piattos and the other suspicious payees may now escape identification. The grocery has closed; taxpayers still hold the bill.
Prosecutors say focusing on their strongest charge saves time. One proven article can secure conviction. But why parade accusations for weeks, then withdraw them before judgment? Was this prosecution or an audition for television?
Withdrawal proves neither innocence nor guilt. The charges leave; the reputational damage stays. Senators must decide the remaining article on evidence. Repetition cannot turn allegations into proof. Otherwise, television reruns would count as corroborating witnesses.
The mistrial question
Sara’s lawyers argue that withdrawn accusations damaged her publicly while denying her a proper chance to answer them in court.
They warn of a mistrial.
That is an argument, not a ruling. Counsel cannot invalidate proceedings simply by saying the magic word. Still, fairness deserves more than an irritated wave from the prosecution.
The court must clarify which evidence remains relevant and let both sides challenge it. Accusations cannot receive unlimited airtime while scrutiny gets canceled for lack of scheduling convenience.
The defense, however, must identify an actual procedural defect. Disliking the prosecution is insufficient. Otherwise, Philippine courts could close before lunch.
Prosecutors must formally offer their evidence by Oct. 23. The defense starts presenting its case on Nov. 9, following a preparation period of 26 days. A verdict is being discussed for late November or early December. Speed is welcome. Justice is not a catering service obliged to deliver before the Christmas party.
Sara says she will not resign. Her lawyers now have the floor. Let them answer the evidence; let senators judge it with reasons, not applause.
The P818-million question
Drawing on banking, tax and corporate records, forensic analyst Alexander Cabrera’s calculation includes questioned balances, properties and business income — more than eight times Sara’s declared net worth of P98.66 million in 2025.
The numbers are impressive. They remain allegations, not a verdict. Undeclared assets, unreported income and unexplained wealth are not interchangeable. Senators must establish what the figures represent, who owned the money, what required disclosure and whether any proven violation warrants removal.
Money passing through an account does not automatically become personal wealth. Otherwise, every bank teller would qualify for the Forbes list. Transfers must not be counted twice. Company revenues are not automatically shareholders’ income. Legitimate earnings and liabilities must enter the calculation.
These are questions of evidence, not excuses for Sara. Prosecutors must prove their case. The defense must be allowed to challenge calculations and present records explaining discrepancies. Neither a large total nor an indignant denial can settle questions that require documents, careful accounting and a fair hearing.
But Sara owes the public more than cries of persecution. Where did the money come from? What belonged to her? What should her asset declarations have disclosed?
When arithmetic becomes uncomfortable, attacking the calculator is rarely a complete answer.
Confidential does not mean sacred
The confidential-funds article has left this trial. The public question survives: How do we verify secret spending without compromising legitimate operations?
Confidential funds are necessarily secret. That does not make them sacred. Secrecy must protect operations, not officials from accountability. Nor can confidentiality mean, “Trust me, the money disappeared patriotically.”
Lawful audits and independent scrutiny remain essential. But senators cannot substitute outrage about confidential funds for proof of the surviving wealth charge. Accountability requires both honest spending and honest procedure.
Acquittal remains possible
The court’s September ruling reduced the present conviction threshold from 16 votes to 14 by counting only senators able to participate. That ruling itself shows how consequential procedural decisions have become.
Senators must judge the evidence, not family alliances, survey ratings, Palace preferences or calculations about which presidential candidate may later remember their vote.
Sara may survive because the prosecution fails to establish its case, because her explanations withstand scrutiny, or because the necessary votes never materialize. Procedural challenges may also affect the outcome.
Those possibilities mean different things. Politically, expect them to be marketed under one convenient label: complete vindication. Equally, conviction must rest on a properly established ground for removal. Popular dislike of a surname is not evidence. Neither is popularity a certificate of innocence.
The persecuted heiress
Sara possesses advantages no spreadsheet can measure: a national electoral mandate, a powerful Mindanao base and the emotional loyalty attached to her detained father.
Every misstep by her accusers strengthens her claim that impeachment is designed to eliminate a presidential rival.
That argument carries weight because this prosecution did not descend from constitutional heaven. It emerged from the ruins of UniTeam: two dynasties that embraced, divided the spoils and then discovered that only one family could inherit Malacañang.
Survival could make Sara stronger — the woman who endured the Marcoses, Congress and the combined talents of her enemies.
Philippine politics adores a victim, particularly one with machinery and excellent survey ratings.
But surviving impeachment would not answer the larger question: What does Sara offer beyond grievance, inheritance and revenge?
Voters should demand a program: competent government, stronger institutions, economic opportunity and a foreign policy serving Philippine interests. A famous surname supplies instant recognition. It supplies neither a governing philosophy nor proof of competence. The country needs more than another family asking us to settle its quarrels at the ballot box.
The system on trial
This is why Sara’s impeachment belongs within our larger discussion of institutions. Our presidential system turns succession into dynastic warfare and accountability into a national convulsion.
Removal requires House impeachment and a Senate supermajority. Every confrontation becomes an all-or-nothing melodrama involving rival families and their political survival. It is a zero-sum game. In a parliamentary system, a head of government who loses parliamentary confidence can be replaced without an impeachment trial. That political remedy does not replace investigation or punishment for wrongdoing.
But parliamentarism alone will not save us. Without genuine political parties, anti-dynasty safeguards and transparent campaign finance, we will merely change the plumbing while keeping the sewage.
Sara deserves a fair hearing. Filipinos deserve honest answers. Senators owe allegiance to the Constitution. A mistrial warning must be examined. It must not become an escape hatch merely because accountability has grown uncomfortable.
Sara is impeached — but not yet defeated. And in the Philippines, surviving accountability is often mistaken for qualification to become president.
To be continued on Oct. 28, 2026
lito.lorenzana@cdpi.asia
