THE impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte plods on with the public watching in exasperation, as there is no sign of improving its snail-like pace; its erroneous, vexing and incorrigible rulings by the presiding officer, competing with the unremarkable parade of worthless prosecution witnesses, who, instead of truthful testimonies, provide evasive and worthless narratives that distort and obfuscate the circumstances that surrounded the vice president’s controversial remarks.
So far, the three prosecution witnesses, presented to prove Article IV of the impeachment complaint charging VP Sara for the impeachable offense of betrayal of public trust — Senior Agent Mark Calilung, Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc and Director Melvin Matibag, all from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) — have not proved the case of the prosecution.
Calilung was presented to prove the authenticity of the video containing the online conference of VP Sara, where she uttered the remarks the prosecution regarded as grave threats and inciting to sedition, which formed the basis of the impeachable offense of betrayal of public trust.
In the first place, the said conference is not in dispute nor were the utterances made there; hence, Calilung’s testimony on this matter is unnecessary and useless. His other testimony touched on the investigation he conducted at that conference. Instead of favoring the prosecution, he highlighted the fact the inquiry he made was superficial and merely for show. He limited his investigation to four participants, i.e. news reporters and a blogger. He disregarded getting information from the other reporters present to determine the environment under which VP Sara’s remarks were made.
Calilung did not coordinate with the Presidential Security Group as to whether the vice president’s statements constituted a threat to the life of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., nor did it coordinate with the Armed Forces of the Philippines to evaluate whether her remarks constituted a threat to national security.
Additionally, Calilung was called to the witness stand as an expert witness on cyber libel. It turned out he only trained for two weeks — hardly a training experience required of a witness before qualifying as an expert witness in a particular field. This witness could not also answer directly the questions of the defense counsel on cross-examination, dodging these — a trait that understandably and unsurprisingly characterized the manner of responses by the other two NBI witnesses.
One of them, Lotoc, was nowhere an improvement on Calilung as a witness. He effectively sunk further the prosecution’s case as he validated Calilung’s testimony that the NBI’s first and second investigations were not thorough and merely pro porma. Both Calilung and Lotoc admitted that they did not investigate the threat against VP Sara’s life, apart from sending her an invitation to provide their agency information on the threat — which she declined — despite the continuing visible threat, in addition to the oppressive acts committed against her, her family, her staff and her allies, especially the withdrawal of her trusted security personnel, whose circumstances triggered her outburst, calling out the people for help on the imminence of her physical obliteration and seeking justice for her planned assassination, as well as unmasking her would-be perpetrators.
Lotoc, using his being a lawyer to full extent, hewed and dodged as he avoided answering directly the questions from the cross-examiner. He came out as an unreliable witness when he admitted that he was facing serious criminal charges of arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest at the Office of the Ombudsman, including crimes involving moral turpitude, such as theft, robbery and perjury.
Both Calilung and Lotoc admitted that there were no reported seditious acts committed by various groups as a consequence of VP Sara’s allegedly seditious remarks and grave threats against President Marcos, nor was she present at anti-government rallies advocating to overthrow the government.
The third prosecution witness, Matibag, whose political somersaulting qualifies him as a political operator, thereby exposing his dubious political loyalty to a cause, is a patently biased witness. He admitted to writing three vicious, disparaging articles in the Daily Tribune against VP Sara. His wife is a member of the House of Representatives who voted to impeach the vice president. He cannot, therefore, say anything good against the respondent and would certainly testify against her, and in fact he did, with gusto.
Despite the relentless propagandizing of the prosecution team inside the impeachment court, inadvertently aided by the erroneous rulings of the presiding officer, as well as the constant black propaganda dished out in public by its allies in Congress, its case against VP Sara and obsession to remove her from office and disqualify her from running in the 2028 presidential elections has not gained a foothold, simply because there is no constitutional basis for the articles of impeachment.
Not even a foolish rant from a member of the impeachment court notorious for advocating the necessity of bending or breaking a law could help the prosecution’s losing cause. This law bender railed against his colleagues for standing up and defending themselves from malicious innuendo and evident intimidation coming from a prosecution witness and a government official who foisted the filing of cases against two senator-judges, necessarily impugning their integrity. He doesn’t even know the function of the impeachment court, which is to hear a case filed against an impeachable officer and to decide it in accordance with the law and evidence presented before it.
One begins to wonder what sins have the people committed to deserve a harebrained politician, and what graver sins they have committed, to deserve failed governance from those they have placed in power.
