Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial cannot be viewed solely as a legal proceeding because its outcome is closely tied to the 2028 presidential election, lawyer and political consultant Atty. Carlos “Kuya Charlie” Serapio said.

Speaking on DAILY TRIBUNE’s Straight Talk, Serapio said the Senate court is expected to uphold the Constitution, truth, justice and public interest.

However, he noted that the proceedings also carry a political dimension because the case is decided by senator-judges who are elected officials.

“It is not entirely a legal proceeding, but a political proceeding,” Serapio said, explaining that conviction requires the votes of at least 16 senator-judges.

He said the impeachment trial should be viewed alongside the next presidential election, as a conviction would prevent Duterte from seeking the presidency in 2028, while an acquittal could strengthen her political standing.

“If she is convicted, then she’s out of the race. She’s not going to be a candidate. On the other hand, if she is acquitted, then that bolsters even her chances,” he said.

Serapio said the prosecution continues to carry the burden of proving the allegations against the vice president, while the defense is expected to challenge the evidence presented through procedural objections and other legal remedies.

Prosec carries burden

“The burden of proof still stays with the prosecution,” he said.

He explained that procedural tactics, including objections to the admission of evidence, are part of a lawyer’s duty to protect a client, particularly when the opposing side appears to have a strong case.

“If they’re using the procedural maneuvers in order to prevent it, then they’ll do so,” he said, adding that procedures can sometimes determine the outcome of a case.

Serapio also said the legal battle is accompanied by efforts from both camps to advance their respective narratives.

He noted that the prosecution has repeatedly framed its arguments around public accountability, while the defense has emphasized that Duterte was elected by 32 million Filipinos and should only be removed upon strong proof of the charges against her.

He said the requirement of securing at least 16 votes for conviction makes the proceedings “a numbers game,” underscoring the political realities surrounding the impeachment process.

According to Serapio, Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who is presiding over the impeachment court, has so far managed the proceedings effectively.

“The presiding officer has acquitted himself very well in terms of controlling the proceedings. He seems to know very well the rules that govern the proceedings,” he said.

Despite the political implications of the trial, Serapio said the impeachment process remains a constitutional mechanism designed to ensure accountability while observing due process.

He added that while senator-judges will ultimately decide the impeachment case, the Filipino people will continue to exercise their sovereign will through elections.

“The election... is the process or the mechanism by which the sovereign will is ascertained or determined,” he said.

Sara can’t be hostile witness

Former University of the East College of Law Dean Amado Valdez said the constitutional right against self-incrimination distinguishes between an ordinary witness and an accused person, emphasizing that respondents in criminal proceedings cannot be compelled to testify against themselves.

His comment during Daily Tribune’s “The Impeachment Rundown: The Trial of Vice President Sara Duterte” interview, Valdez explained that while an ordinary witness may be required to appear in response to a subpoena, the witness may refuse to answer questions that could be self-incriminating.

“There are two aspects of the right against self-incrimination,” Valdez said. “If you are an ordinary witness, you can be compelled by subpoena to appear. You must comply and take the witness stand. But once a question becomes incriminating, you may invoke your right not to answer.”

He said the rule is different for an accused or respondent in a criminal case.

“If you are the respondent or the accused, you cannot be compelled to take the witness stand,” he said, adding that under the Constitution and prevailing jurisprudence, an accused may testify only if he or she voluntarily chooses to do so.

Valdez said the principle applies in all courts because the defense is expected to rely on the strength or weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.