Photo courtesy: AP
An impeachment trial should be about evidence—not about forcing the accused to become the prosecution’s missing witness.
After weeks of hearings, hostile witnesses, heated exchanges and mountains of allegations, one might have expected the prosecution’s case to become increasingly compelling.
Instead, the latest development raises a very different question.
The prosecution has withdrawn its remaining witnesses and sought to bring Vice President Sara Duterte herself to the witness stand as a possible hostile witness.
That is certainly a dramatic move.
But drama is not evidence.
An impeachment trial is supposed to determine whether the charges against a public official have been established sufficiently to justify the extraordinary consequence of removing that official from office. It should therefore be the prosecution’s evidence that carries the burden of persuasion—not the accused being placed in the uncomfortable position of filling whatever evidentiary gaps remain.
And here lies the constitutional issue that every Filipino should understand.
The right against self-incrimination is not a technical privilege invented for the convenience of politicians. It is a fundamental protection under our Constitution. No person may be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself.
Yes, the Vice President may voluntarily testify.
Yes, she may choose to answer questions.
But calling her a “hostile witness” does not magically erase her constitutional protection.
If the prosecution’s theory depends upon answers that only the accused herself can provide, then the public is entitled to ask a simple question:
Where is the independent evidence?
The prosecution should be able to establish its allegations through documents, credible witnesses, authenticated records, competent expert testimony and other admissible evidence. The respondent’s refusal to incriminate herself cannot be transformed into proof of guilt.
Otherwise, the dangerous precedent would be this:
If the prosecution cannot sufficiently prove the case against you, perhaps it can simply put you on the witness stand and make you prove it for them.
That is not how due process should work.
And this is not an argument that Vice President Duterte should be protected from legitimate scrutiny. Public officials must answer serious allegations, particularly allegations involving public funds, abuse of authority or conduct inconsistent with their constitutional responsibilities.
But accountability and constitutional rights must exist together.
We cannot demand accountability from public officials while simultaneously weakening the very constitutional safeguards that protect every Filipino—including those we dislike, distrust or politically oppose.
That is precisely why constitutional rights matter.
They are not supposed to protect only the popular.
They are supposed to protect everyone.
Perhaps the prosecution has a strong case. Perhaps it does not. That determination should ultimately come from the evidence presented before the impeachment court—not from political cheering sections, social-media narratives or the refusal of an accused person to provide testimony that could potentially harm her own defense.
The prosecution began this trial with allegations it said could justify removing the country’s Vice President from office.
It should therefore finish it with evidence sufficient to establish those allegations.
Not with a fishing expedition on the witness stand.
Because if the case is strong, let the evidence speak.
And if the evidence is weak, no amount of political theater should compel the accused to become the missing piece of the prosecution’s puzzle.
An impeachment trial must seek the truth—not manufacture it from the testimony of the person being accused
