The campaign to oust Vice President Sara Duterte appears to have encountered a hurdle as formidable as Mt. Kanlaon in the person of lead defense counsel Sheila Sison, whose opening statement dismantled the House prosecutors’ arguments at the start of the impeachment trial.

Largely unknown to the public, Sison was identified as a partner at Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar, the law firm founded by veteran litigators Philip Sigfrid Fortun, Gregorio Narvasa II, and Roderick Salazar III. The firm also represented Duterte in her petition challenging the constitutionality of the 2025 impeachment complaint.

Most of Duterte’s 16-member defense team — including Michael Poa, Kristine Ferrer, Carlo Joaquin Narvasa and several others — are also with the firm, underscoring the legal firepower assembled for this case.

From the opening moments of the proceedings, it became evident that the impeachment battle would be anything but ordinary. When House lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro tried to sneak in the reading of the articles of impeachment, Sison took it as an attempt to arraign the vice president on the charges against her.

Sison sought the legal basis for arraigning Vice President Duterte and proceeded to dismantle the arguments cited by the prosecution in support of the move. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero denied Luistro’s motion.

In her initial address, Sison deftly maintained that, amid the vicious noise directed at the Vice President, the burden of proof remains with her accusers.

“We have heard the same tales and stories of these accusations since 2024, when the House conducted its Quadcomm hearings and, most recently, the mini trial of its Committee on Justice. But what we must not forget, amid all these accusations, is the fundamental legal principle that the burden of proof never shifts,” she averred.

In gist, the accuser must prove the allegations with evidence that meets, according to Sison, not only the required degree of proof but also the evidentiary standards of admissibility, credibility, relevance, materiality and competence.

That puts the burden on the prosecution. “Unless it discharges that burden, the accused need not even offer evidence on her behalf, and she will be entitled to an acquittal,” Sison said.

“This was the law then. This is the law now. And the underlying principle behind this burden of proof is simple. Under our Constitution, every accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise,” she maintained.

Sison reminded the court that its undertaking carried not only the weight of the Constitution but also the imprint of the nation’s history because the Filipino people have shown that they never forget.

“We, as a nation, never forget. But why is the act of remembering important? What does it matter to our history and to ordinary Filipinos?

“Because in this trial, the prosecution proposes that we unseat the Vice President elected by more than 32 million Filipinos — more than the number of votes cast for the sitting President and far greater than the votes secured by each of the members of the House of Representatives who are now here to prosecute her and seek to undo the people’s choice,” Sison said.

In sum, if Sison stays the course and her team remains steadfast, the public may be witnessing a legal battle worthy of a place in the annals of Philippine impeachment history — one that could rival the courtroom dramas of past trials