The impeachment trial must be about evidence, not political theater.
The resumption of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial has once again placed the country’s political divisions under the spotlight. But beyond the political noise, personalities and sometimes contentious exchanges inside the Senate, one fundamental principle must prevail: An impeachment trial must be decided by evidence, not political loyalties or public theatrics.
The prosecution has rested its case, relying primarily on allegations of unexplained wealth and discrepancies in the Vice President’s financial disclosures. Its forensic analyst estimated at least ₱817.87 million in allegedly unexplained assets. That is a serious allegation that deserves a serious examination. But an allegation, however substantial, is not yet a finding of guilt.
Now the defense has begun presenting its witnesses and documentary explanations.
The November 11 testimony of corporate counsel Suzette Balucanag-Punay brought another dimension to the8 proceedings. Questions surrounding an alleged ₱2.14-million income from an investment connected with GenCorp Industries Inc. raised issues concerning corporate ownership, business relationships and the Vice President’s financial disclosures.
These are legitimate matters for examination. The prosecution has every right to test the witness’s explanations, while the defense has every right to establish its version through corporate records and other competent evidence.
But the public must distinguish between a question raised during cross-examination and a fact conclusively established by the court.
The same standard applies to both sides.
We should neither dismiss the prosecution’s allegations as political harassment without examining the evidence nor accept every accusation as established truth simply because it is presented in an impeachment proceeding.
The Senate, acting as an impeachment court, carries an enormous constitutional responsibility. Its members are not merely political personalities conducting a public debate. They are senator-judges entrusted with determining whether the evidence satisfies the constitutional grounds for conviction.However there are sone who have shed their skins and shows their true colors as biased and under closet payroll list.
Their questions should therefore be relevant, fair and directed toward establishing the truth.
The defense must also do its part. Explanations must be supported by authentic documents, consistent testimony and a credible accounting of the financial transactions under scrutiny. A witness’s confidence cannot substitute for documentary proof.
Ultimately, this proceeding is bigger than Sara Duterte, the prosecution team or the political interests surrounding the 2028 elections.
It is about preserving the credibility of impeachment as a constitutional mechanism for accountability.
The Filipino people deserve neither a politically motivated conviction nor an undeserved acquittal. They deserve a process that is transparent, impartial and anchored on evidence.
The prosecution must prove its allegations. The defense must substantiate its explanations. And the Senate must judge the evidence, not the personalities presenting it.
That is how constitutional accountability should work. Anything less would be an injustice to the institution and to the Filipino people.
