The perception battle was evident in the ongoing trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, particularly with her appearance yesterday at the Senate premises before the start of the second day of proceedings.

The surprise visit of Duterte raised public anticipation, but it turned out she was there to hold a press briefing and not to participate in her trial.

Former University of the East College of Law dean and Daily Tribune consultant on the impeachment trial, Amado Valdez, said Duterte was just testing the waters.

“There was a horde of supporters crowding her to make it appear she had ground support. More addressed to the judges,” according to Valdez.

Lawyer Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., counsel for Duterte in the perjury complaint she filed against confessed former “bagman” Ramil Madriaga, said the biggest question to emerge from the impeachment trial so far is why the Senate majority installed Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero as presiding officer despite what he described as a high risk the move could be declared unconstitutional.

Panelo surmised an ulterior motive, “especially considering how vulnerable Chiz is in relation to the flood control scandal.”

“It would seem then that Chiz was installed to ensure a conviction against VP Sara, or inflict maximum damage on her,” he said.

Panelo’s father, former presidential chief legal counsel and spokesperson Salvador Panelo, said he advised Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Robin Padilla to immediately question before the Supreme Court the replacement of Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian as presiding officer of the impeachment court.

The elder Panelo had been the lawyer and adviser to former president Rodrigo Duterte, the Vice President’s father.

“The action is constitutionally infirm. The language as well as the intent of the framers of the Constitution are crystal clear — the Senate President must sit as the presiding officer of the impeachment court,” the elder Panelo said.

He added that the act was “ultra vires” and would affect the integrity of the impeachment court.

In turn, the impeachment proceedings could be nullified by the SC for blatant violation of the Constitution, according to Panelo.