MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is entering another critical phase, with prosecutors continuing to present evidence before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
But a claim that a former Sandiganbayan justice will testify requires careful verification. As of the latest available reporting, major Philippine news outlets and official sources have not established that such a former justice has been formally subpoenaed or confirmed as an upcoming prosecution witness.
That distinction matters as the trial moves toward the presentation of the remaining evidence and eventually the defense’s case.
Prosecution Continues Building Its Case
The House prosecution panel has presented witnesses on several of the allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.
The evidence has included testimony concerning the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds attributed to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure. The prosecution has also presented evidence concerning the separate allegation involving Duterte’s November 2024 remarks about President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Among those who have testified are former LandBank branch managers, Commission on Audit personnel, NBI officials and former government officials.
The allegations remain contested, and Duterte’s defense has challenged the prosecution’s evidence and interpretations.
Duterte Herself Could Become a Key Witness
One of the biggest developments in the trial is not the reported former Sandiganbayan justice, but the prosecution’s decision to reserve the right to call Duterte herself.
House prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said the Vice President’s testimony could be material to all four articles of impeachment, including the allegations involving grave threats, confidential funds, unexplained wealth and bribery.
The defense, however, has pushed back against any suggestion that Duterte can be compelled to testify.
Her lead defense counsel, Sheila Sison, invoked the constitutional protection against being compelled to testify against oneself.
That could make Duterte’s potential appearance one of the most closely watched moments of the entire proceeding.
The Trial Has Already Produced Major Witness Testimony
The prosecution’s case has developed over weeks of testimony.
Former LandBank managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano testified about large confidential-fund withdrawals involving the OVP and DepEd. PNA reported that the prosecution later dropped plans to present several other potential witnesses, including former Duterte security officers and alleged former aide Ramil Madriaga, saying evidence already presented was sufficient for the confidential-funds allegations.
Former COA personnel also testified regarding the documentation and liquidation of confidential-fund expenditures. GMA’s running timeline of the trial records testimony concerning the absence of receipts and other documentary issues surrounding some of the expenditures.
Meanwhile, NBI officials testified in connection with the fourth article, which concerns Duterte’s controversial November 2024 online remarks.
Why the Former Justice Claim Matters
A former Sandiganbayan justice appearing before the impeachment court would be potentially significant because the Sandiganbayan is the Philippines’ special anti-graft court.
However, being a former justice would not automatically make a person an expert witness on every allegation against Duterte. The relevance of any testimony would depend on the individual’s knowledge, expertise and the specific subject for which the prosecution seeks the testimony.
For that reason, the identity and proposed testimony of the alleged former justice should be confirmed before publication.
At present, the available reporting does not provide enough evidence to state categorically that such a witness is scheduled to testify.
Another Legal Battle Is Emerging Inside the Trial
The Senate impeachment court is also dealing with a separate dispute over the number of votes required to convict Duterte.
Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero has scheduled oral arguments for September 23 concerning the voting threshold after questions were raised about the participation of senator-judges who are currently absent from the proceedings.
The issue could become crucial when the Senate eventually votes on Duterte’s political fate.
Meanwhile, several senator-judges have argued that Duterte should personally appear before the impeachment court to answer the allegations.
The Stakes Are Bigger Than One Witness
The impeachment trial is unfolding alongside separate legal proceedings involving Duterte.
On September 4, a Quezon City court issued a warrant for her arrest over three counts of grave threats connected to her 2024 remarks. Duterte denied the accusations and subsequently posted bail. Reuters reported that the criminal case is separate from the impeachment proceeding, although some of the underlying allegations overlap.
The overlapping cases have intensified an already bitter political confrontation between the Marcos and Duterte camps.
A conviction in the impeachment case could remove Duterte from the vice presidency and affect her political future, including her previously discussed ambitions for the 2028 presidential election.
The Question Now: Who Takes the Stand Next?
For now, the most important development is that the Senate impeachment court continues to weigh evidence from a growing list of witnesses while the prosecution moves toward completing its case.
The possibility of Duterte herself taking the witness stand could prove far more consequential than an unconfirmed report about another witness.
And if a former Sandiganbayan justice is indeed being considered, the Senate will ultimately need to determine what that person can actually establish—and whether the testimony is admissible and relevant to the Articles of Impeachment.
The trial is therefore entering a potentially decisive stage.
The biggest question is no longer simply who will testify next. It is whether the next witness—or Duterte herself—can change how the Senate judges the evidence already on the table.
Leave a Reply