The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte opened with intense procedural friction, signaling a high-stakes legal and political battle. Even before the first witness could take the stand, the proceedings were momentarily paralyzed by a contest over the interpretation of the Constitution regarding the presiding officer of the impeachment court. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano spearheaded an objection against the appointment of Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero, arguing that the Constitution mandates the Senate President to preside in such trials. Cayetano warned that sidelining the body’s leader could fundamentally jeopardize the legality of the trial and provide grounds for a future constitutional challenge against any verdict reached by the chamber.
The Senate ultimately moved to settle the dispute through a 12-8 vote, rejecting Cayetano’s objection and formalizing Escudero’s role under an amendment to Senate impeachment rules. This legislative maneuvering ignited immediate controversy on social media, where opposing camps clashed over whether the Senate was upholding its mandate or acting unconstitutionally. Sen. Francis Pangilinan and legal experts like former dean Mel Sta. Maria defended the action, clarifying that the Constitution only mandates the Chief Justice to preside when a President is under trial. They maintained that the Charter grants Congress the authority to determine its own procedural rules, leaving the oversight of non-presidential impeachment trials to the Senate’s internal governance.
With the leadership dispute resolved, Judge-Presiding Senator Escudero assumed control, setting the ground rules for the trial. He underscored that the burden of proof rests entirely on the House prosecutors and reiterated that any conviction requires a two-thirds majority of 24 senators, or at least 16 votes, per Supreme Court precedent. In an early procedural setback for the prosecution, the court denied an immediate requests to open a sealed box of Bureau of Internal Revenue documents, ruling that the evidence had not yet been formally and lawfully produced. These initial rulings highlighted the court’s intent to uphold strict evidentiary standards as the trial moves toward its substantive phase.
The defense, led by attorney Sheila Sison, opened with a forceful narrative that framed the impeachment as an affront to the mandate of over 32 million Filipino voters. Sison argued that the prosecution’s efforts to unseat the Vice President were built on a “mini-trial” conducted prematurely by the House Committee on Justice, accusing the body of exceeding its legal scope. Central to the defense’s argument is the claim that the Commission on Audit (COA) never explicitly found evidence of criminal misuse or corruption. Sison contended that the existing Notices of Disallowance issued against the Office of the Vice President remain administrative, not criminal, matters, and therefore do not constitute impeachable offenses.
In contrast, the House prosecution team painted a picture of systemic fiscal mismanagement that warrants removal from office. Manila Representative Joel Chua challenged the defense’s characterization, pointing out that the 2022 Notice of Disallowance—covering P73.28 million in confidential funds—was not an isolated event but part of a recurring pattern. With three subsequent notices issued for 2023 totaling P375 million, the prosecution argued these findings underscore a persistent failure in documentation and reporting standards. They posited that while the COA rulings are administrative, the repeated disregard for auditing requirements is sufficient to establish a breach of public trust, which serves as a core ground for the impeachment complaint.
As the trial transitions into its witness phase, legal observers warn that the constitutional and audit-related arguments are ripe for public misinterpretation. The two sides remain at an impasse: the defense maintains that administrative audit findings do not rise to the level of criminal graft, while the prosecution insists that the consistent failure to comply with the Joint Circular constitutes a pattern of willful accountability evasion. Ultimately, the Senate impeachment court will carry the burden of determining whether these complex audit disputes and procedural conflicts satisfy the high legal threshold required to remove a constitutional official from power, a decision that will undoubtedly test the nation’s political and legal institutions.