THE impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has only begun, and once again, the Philippines is doing what it does best: turning a constitutional proceeding into a national dramatic political teleserye, complete with plot twists and dramatic sound bites.
But here is the point I emphasized from the very beginning: Context matters in all this. Also, it is still too early to declare who is winning or losing. Impeachment is not a popularity contest, nor should it be reduced to sound bites, political noise, or selective narratives. What matters are the facts, the legal basis, the strength of the prosecution’s case, the defense’s arguments, and the broader political context shaping public opinion.
The political battlefield
The first three days of the impeachment trial, from July 6 to 8, 2026, already revealed the real battlefield. Formally, this is a trial about alleged misuse of public funds, unexplained wealth, bribery, corruption, betrayal of public trust, and alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the first lady, and former House speaker Martin Romualdez. Politically, however, this is also about the implosion of the Marcos-Duterte alliance and the road to the 2028 presidential elections. The trial is unfolding against the backdrop of Duterte’s potential presidential candidacy and the bitter collapse of the once-dominant Marcos-Duterte political partnership.
That is why the public must be careful. A legal process can be legitimate even if politics surrounds it. But a legal process can also be corrupted when politics devours it. The question is not merely whether Sara Duterte should be held accountable if evidence proves impeachable wrongdoing. No public official is above accountability and above the law. But the equally important question is this: Is accountability being pursued with clean hands, equal standards and constitutional discipline, devoid of political motivation on the part of the vice president’s political enemies?
Article 4
On the first day, the Senate impeachment court opened amid procedural tension and political drama. The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate. In a 24-member Senate, that means 16 votes. This is not a mathematical accessory. It is a constitutional guardrail. The framers did not want impeachment to become a casual weapon of temporary majorities. They designed it to require a supermajority precisely because removal from office is not ordinary politics.
And yet, from the very beginning, the trial already looked like a constitutional proceeding walking through a political minefield. Duterte allies in the Senate have been facing legal troubles, arrests and political pressure. No doubt this affects Sara Duterte’s support base inside the Senate. The timing may be legally explainable, but politically, it’s fishy and smells like gunpowder. In Philippine politics, timing is never innocent. It is often the fingerprints that remain after the gloves have been removed.
On the second day, the prosecution went straight for the most dramatic article: the alleged threats against President Marcos and others. Prosecutors presented video evidence and called an NBI (National Bureau of Investigation) official to authenticate clips of Duterte’s controversial remarks. The prosecution used the video to argue that Duterte’s words carried grave constitutional implications because of her high office.
Now, let us be clear. Indeed, any high-ranking official cannot casually speak of killing a president precisely because words from high officials carry weight. But here is the legal problem: A video may prove that words were spoken. It does not automatically prove an operational assassination plot. It does not automatically prove intent. The tactic of the prosecution in shocking the public is not automatically and legally persuasive enough to prove an impeachable offense sufficient to remove and disqualify a vice president elected by more than 32 million Filipinos.
In this regard, sitting senators should and must consider the context, emotional state, conditional language, political provocation, selective interpretation and evidentiary sufficiency. Yes, the words could be construed as reckless given the context in which they were said, but not necessarily criminal or impeachable under the Constitution.
To the senator-judges, impeachment should not become a punishment for political speech, however crude or combative, unless it is clearly tied to an actual abuse of office, a betrayal of the public trust, or a threat to the constitutional order.
Furthermore, the senator-judges should get to the bottom of how digital evidence is handled: chain of custody, authenticity, completeness, editing, context, and possible manipulation. In the age of AI, deepfakes, selective clipping and viral distortion, the old argument of “we saw it on video” is no longer enough. The question is not just whether the video exists. The question is whether it is complete, authentic, properly preserved, legally admissible and interpreted fairly.
On the third day, the trial became less theatrical and more technical. Also, lawyer Zuleika Lopez, Duterte’s longtime aide and chief of staff, is expected to testify. This is where the trial will either gain legal muscle or expose prosecutorial weakness. The expected testimony of Lopez is crucial, as it can provide context to the vice president’s so-called statements and why it was so, and whether, in any case, it was provoked by concerns over personal safety and political harassment.
Battlegrounds
Furthermore, the other major battleground is documentary evidence: confidential funds, SALNs, tax records, bank records, business links and possible unexplained wealth. But again, there must be discipline. Subpoenas for tax, bank, AMLC and business records must not become fishing expeditions. The prosecution must show relevance. The defense has every right to question overbreadth, privacy, confidentiality and political harassment. Impeachment is powerful, but it is not a license to rummage through every drawer of a political enemy’s life just to see what embarrassing object might fall out.
Conclusion
Yes, indeed, the vice president must answer the core allegations of these ongoing impeachment proceedings. But one thing that the public must never forget: the truth will depend on the evidence, the fairness of the process, and the conduct of the senator-judges. The Senate must remember that it is not merely judging Sara Duterte. It is also being judged by the Filipino people. Public sentiment is crucial in all these.
Impeachment trials are legal proceedings inasmuch as they are political processes. But they unfold within a political nation. The Filipino public is not a passive audience. It is the larger jury of legitimacy. If the public believes the process is fair, whatever the results, it may be accepted. But if the public sees selective justice, political vengeance, or constitutional manipulation, then any verdict may deepen the country’s division.
At its core, this trial is about more than Sara Duterte. It is about whether the Philippines can still distinguish accountability from political persecution, justice from revenge, and constitutional order from political theater.
So, let the evidence speak. Let the Constitution rule. Let the Senate behave like a court, not a circus. Because if this trial becomes merely a weapon to eliminate a political rival, then the real casualty will not be Sara Duterte alone. It will be the republic.
