Many pundits are claiming that the recent senatorial elections has reshaped the political landscape and have all but doomed the impeachment case against Sara Duterte regardless of the strength of the evidence against her.

The Senate now includes at least five newly elected pro-Duterte senators — Bong Go, Bato de la Rosa, Rodante Marcoleta, Camille Villar and Imee Marcos — alongside incumbents Robin Padilla and Mark Villar. Securing the 16 votes needed for conviction now seems nearly impossible.

With the Dutertes’ enduring influence, bolstered by their strong showing and former president Rodrigo Duterte’s mayoral win in Davao City, this has led many to declare the impeachment politically dead.

In my opinion, the results of the recent elections once again demonstrated the malleability of the Pinoy voters, who are easily swayed by the political circumstances and events transpiring at the time of the election season.

Note that before the former president’s arrest, attendance at Maisug rallies had dwindled and Sara Duterte’s popularity was declining. Even Senator Bato acknowledged that his strong electoral performance was due to Digong’s arrest. The Duterte camp successfully framed the election as a feud between the Marcoses and the Dutertes.

Despite this, I truly believe that the prosecution can defy the pundits by adopting a multi-pronged strategy that should employ credible voices, mobilize public pressure, and reframe the trial as a fight for justice, not a Marcos-Duterte feud.

As I have stated, the core challenge lies in the Senate’s composition, where loyalties tilt heavily toward the Dutertes. With at least seven allies, including swing voters, possibly the Estradas, Cayetanos, and Zubiri, the pro-Duterte senators present a formidable bloc. To overcome this, the prosecution must first reframe the narrative by centering on liberal figures untainted by the Marcos-Duterte rivalry.

The move to include Leila de Lima and Chel Diokno, newly elected House representatives for Mamamayang Liberal and Akbayan, respectively, as lead prosecutors was a strategic masterstroke. De Lima’s unjust detention under Rodrigo Duterte and Diokno’s principled opposition to the Duterte regime’s excesses give them unmatched moral authority.

By positioning them as the face of the prosecution, the trial can shed the perception of being a Marcos-orchestrated vendetta and instead be seen as a defense of democratic accountability. De Lima and Diokno’s voices must be amplified to underscore this shift.

Beyond optics, the prosecution must harness the energy of Gen Z and millennial voters, who form a vibrant, social media-savvy segment of the electorate. These younger Filipinos, drawn to De Lima and Diokno’s progressive credentials, can transform the trial into a case of public attention that will put pressure on the senator-judges to decide on the evidence and their loyalty to the public.

The prosecution should launch a targeted digital campaign on platforms, particularly Facebook, TikTok and X, using infographics and videos to distil the complex charges — the misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, falsification of documents, and threats against President Marcos — into digestible narratives. The hashtags already being utilized like #JusticeForPH and #ImpeachSaraNow can galvanize online activism, building on the momentum of the QuadComm hearings and before Digong’s arrest.

Partnering with youth groups in universities like the Big Four and engaging influencers popular among younger audiences can amplify this message. By encouraging Gen Z and millennials to share personal stories of how Duterte’s policies have harmed communities — whether through underfunded schools or the drug war’s fallout — the prosecution can create an emotional groundswell that will pressure the senators to prioritize evidence over political loyalty.

The evidence itself is the prosecution’s strongest asset and must be presented with surgical precision.

For example, the Philippine Statistics Authority’s findings that most of the 677 recipients of Duterte’s confidential funds did not have public records, coupled with discrepancies in the acknowledgment receipts, offers concrete proof of malfeasance. De Lima and Diokno’s legal acumen can simplify these charges into a compelling story of betrayed public trust, countering Duterte’s defense of ignorance or victimization.

Targeting swing senators is critical to reaching the 16-vote threshold. Highlight to the public the senator-judges’ constitutional duty to judge impartially. Public messaging should call out any senator leaning toward acquittal despite the evidence. Media coverage, including live trial broadcasts, can hold senators accountable to their constituents, many of whom are frustrated by corruption and dynastic politics.

In a worst-case scenario where conviction proves elusive, the trial can weaken Sara Duterte’s 2028 presidential prospects by exposing her vulnerabilities. The prosecution should document the process transparently, ensuring public access to the evidence, and sustain the momentum post-trial through legislative proposals for stricter fund oversight.

By building a great case even with stubborn pro-Duterte senators, the administration can lay the groundwork for a unified anti-Duterte front in future elections.

The pundits may be right that the Senate’s composition poses a steep challenge, but they underestimate the power of a well-executed strategy to transform the trial into a case of public interest and democratic renewal.