Presence not required
If Filipinos begin deciding these cases mainly on appearances, every future impeachment will become a performance contest.
Text size
If Filipinos begin deciding these cases mainly on appearances, every future impeachment will become a performance contest.
Politics has always had a soft spot for theater. We want the dramatic gesture — the tears, the apology, the courtroom appearance — and then we tell ourselves it says something about guilt or innocence. Usually, it doesn’t.
Right now, the loudest complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte has nothing to do with the evidence before the impeachment court. It’s about where she is.
She left for Qatar, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands just as prosecutors obtained a subpoena for her financial records, the same records at the center of the unexplained wealth charges. She has not appeared in person since the trial began on 6 July.
Critics say the timing tells you everything you need to know: someone with nothing to hide would have stayed and watched this part play out.
That’s a fair point, and it deserves better than a shrug. But it still mistakes discomfort for proof. Lawyers exist precisely so their clients do not have to attend every hearing in person. Courts deal with this all the time, with clients elsewhere attending to business, family, health or whatever the reason may be.
Juries in the United States are not instructed to assume guilt simply because a defendant is not physically present. And how different are senator-judges now trying Sara from American or Canadian jurors? So why should an impeachment court work differently?
Her office said the trip was self-funded and intended to meet with overseas Filipino communities, not to flee the proceedings. You do not have to accept that explanation completely to recognize that “she left because she’s guilty” is only one interpretation, and it is the one many people reached for first, not because the evidence led there, but because it was the easiest conclusion to draw.
To be fair, an impeachment is not a criminal trial. Senator-judges are deciding whether someone should remain in office, a broader question than guilt or innocence alone, and her absence may legitimately factor into that assessment. But that is different from saying “she’s hiding,” and the distinction should be made honestly, not inferred from a flight itinerary.
What should actually decide this? Did the confidential funds go where they were supposed to go? Do the bank records show wealth that cannot be explained? Does the paper trail hold up? Did the National Bureau of Investigation’s witnesses withstand cross-examination?
Those questions determine accountability. Her travel dates do not. The articles of impeachment are accusations, not a verdict. The testimony, the bank records — all of it — must be tested properly in the hearing room, not decided in advance by public opinion.
If Filipinos begin deciding these cases mainly on appearances, every future impeachment will become a performance contest, rewarding the official who cries on cue over the one whose lawyers are actually dismantling the case. That is a bad trade.
Duterte should be judged on what the evidence shows, not on where her passport says she has been. If the prosecution proves its case, senator-judges should vote to remove her without hesitation. If it does not, no amount of anger over her travel schedule can fix a case that was never proven.
Justice holds up better when it ignores the spectacle. The rest is theater.
