MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution panel said it remains confident that the senator-judges presiding over Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial will decide the case fairly and without political bias.
House prosecution spokesperson and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said the prosecutors expect the senator-judges to follow the rules of the impeachment court and respect the legal process.
The prosecution emphasized that the case should ultimately be decided on the basis of the law, evidence presented in court and what the senator-judges personally observe during the proceedings—not on political considerations.
The statement comes as the Senate impeachment court enters a critical phase of the trial, with the prosecution continuing to present evidence concerning allegations involving the handling of confidential funds.
Prosecutors want senator-judges to see the evidence firsthand
The prosecution also stressed the importance of senators attending the proceedings personally.
According to the panel, direct attendance gives senator-judges an opportunity to hear witnesses firsthand and observe their testimony, demeanor and responses to questions—factors that may be difficult to assess solely from written records.
Manila Rep. Joel Chua likewise pointed to the oath taken by the senator-judges to remain politically impartial when deciding the case.
However, the prosecution clarified that it was not asking the presiding officer to force senators to attend every proceeding in person, noting that attendance remains an issue within the authority of the impeachment court.
Trial spotlight turns to confidential funds
The prosecution’s appeal for impartiality comes at a particularly consequential point in the trial.
On August 17, former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer Gina Acosta took the witness stand and became the first witness in the current impeachment court to be declared hostile.
Acosta testified that Duterte instructed her to release ₱125 million in confidential funds to former OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica. Her testimony concerned the handling and release of confidential funds and echoed an account she had previously given during a 2024 House hearing.
The Senate impeachment court allowed prosecutors to ask Acosta leading questions after she was declared a hostile witness. GMA News reported that the court’s declaration marked a significant development in the prosecution’s presentation of its case.
The proceedings also generated heated exchanges over Acosta’s testimony, including questions from senator-judge Erwin Tulfo regarding her use of Bisaya during portions of her testimony.
The ₱125-million testimony adds pressure to the prosecution’s case
The testimony placed the alleged movement of confidential funds at the center of the latest stage of the impeachment proceedings.
According to Inquirer’s account of Day 16, Acosta said Duterte directed her to turn over the ₱125 million to Lachica because he knew how to implement the confidential activities.
The prosecution also used simulated images to illustrate the amount of cash discussed in court, while the defense objected to the use of AI-generated visuals, arguing that such simulations do not necessarily establish what the actual cash looked like or how it was handled.
The developments are significant because the trial is still dealing with Article I, which covers allegations involving the supposed misuse of confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
Even the defense has acknowledged fairness in the proceedings
Interestingly, the prosecution’s claim of confidence in the senator-judges comes amid previous statements from Duterte’s camp that the impeachment court had been giving both sides opportunities to present their arguments.
The defense previously said the Senate impeachment court had been fair to both the prosecution and defense, pointing to the opportunities granted to each side during the proceedings.
That does not settle the larger political debate surrounding the trial, however.
The impeachment proceedings have continued to attract intense public scrutiny, with questions surrounding the attendance of senator-judges, courtroom procedures, witness testimony and the political implications of the case.
Bad weather temporarily puts the trial on hold
The Senate impeachment court was scheduled to continue proceedings on August 18, but the trial was cancelled because of forecasts of heavy rain and flooding associated with the southwest monsoon, or Habagat.
The suspension was ordered by Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero. The Senate also cancelled its plenary session for the day amid the weather conditions.
The pause comes immediately after the prosecution’s presentation of Acosta, making the next sitting of the impeachment court another closely watched stage of the proceedings.
What happens next could test the prosecutors’ confidence
For now, the House prosecution panel is making its position clear: it trusts the senator-judges to put evidence and law ahead of political alliances.
But confidence from either side cannot determine the outcome.
The eventual decision will depend on the evidence presented, the arguments of both prosecution and defense, the rules governing the impeachment proceedings and the votes of the senator-judges.
And with the trial now moving deeper into allegations surrounding confidential funds—and with witness testimony placing specific transactions under intense scrutiny—the question may soon become bigger than whether the senator-judges appear impartial.
The bigger question is whether the evidence presented in the coming weeks will be strong enough to change the political and legal balance of the case.
Leave a Reply