Cutting through process behind impeach verdict

When Cyril P. Lubaton talks about the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, he does not begin and end with the question of whether she will be convicted.

Instead, he keeps returning to something less dramatic but, for him, more fundamental: the process.

For Lubaton, a public policy practitioner and senior lecturer at the De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde School of Diplomacy and Governance, the controversies surrounding the impeachment proceedings offer a wider lesson in how institutions work, how rules are interpreted and how public officials are held accountable.

His perspective is shaped less by the personalities involved than by the systems surrounding them.

That was evident as Lubaton discussed the dispute over the number of votes required to convict, the prosecution’s changing strategy, the possible testimony of the vice president, and the treatment of witnesses before the Senate impeachment court.

On the voting threshold, Lubaton,  in an interview in the online program Straight Talk, distinguished between uncertainty in the constitutional text and uncertainty brought about by the circumstances of the proceedings.

The Constitution provides that conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate. The current controversy, he explained, turns on whether the full membership of 24 should remain the basis when some senators cannot participate.

But rather than characterize the Senate’s decision to seek outside guidance as confusion, Lubaton saw it differently.

“For me, it’s a sign of prudence and a sign of humility on the part of the Senate,” he said.

That observation captures much of Lubaton’s approach throughout the discussion: before concluding, establish the rules that should govern the decision.

He emphasized that the Senate impeachment court should first settle the applicable voting rule before moving toward the actual vote.

For Lubaton, however, the issue goes beyond counting votes.

Threshold query

He raised whether senator-judges who cannot participate can adequately perform their judicial function, particularly when they are expected to assess evidence presented before the court.

A judge, he explained, needs to examine evidence and make factual determinations personally. In an impeachment proceeding, that responsibility remains important even though impeachment itself is unlike an ordinary criminal case.

Lubaton described impeachment as sui generis — a constitutional process that is neither purely political nor purely criminal.

His explanation reflects the academic lens he brings to issues of governance: complicated institutions cannot always be reduced to simple categories.

The same approach surfaced when he discussed the prosecution’s decision to adjust its witness strategy.

Rather than immediately interpreting the changes as an indication that certain allegations are weak, Lubaton described them as a possible strategic calculation. The prosecution, he said, may be seeking to establish the allegations it believes it can prove while avoiding unnecessary duplication in testimony.

At the same time, he acknowledged the risk of public perception.

Repeatedly dropping witnesses could lead people to question whether the prosecution is confident in its case, he said. That makes communication part of the prosecution’s challenge, as it explains why its strategy has changed.

For Lubaton, understanding the proceedings requires separating what something looks like politically from what it means procedurally.

He applied that distinction when discussing the declaration of Michael Pua as a hostile witness.

The term may sound dramatic to people unfamiliar with courtroom procedure, Lubaton noted. But procedurally, he explained, a hostile-witness designation primarily affects how the witness may be questioned, including allowing leading questions subject to the rules of evidence and procedure.

It does not, by itself, settle whether the testimony is truthful or credible.

That remains for the senator-judges to determine by examining the witness’s personal knowledge, the consistency of his statements and whether other evidence corroborates or contradicts his testimony.

“The testimony will still have to be evaluated by the senator-judges,” Lubaton said.

His explanation of Vice President Duterte’s possible testimony followed the same principle.

While the prosecution has sought to call Duterte as a witness and her counsel has invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination, Lubaton stressed that impeachment does not automatically remove that right.

“Even in impeachment, it doesn’t mean you surrender your constitutional right against self-incrimination,” he said.

More importantly, he cautioned against allowing the public’s interpretation of a person’s decision to testify — or not to testify — to become a substitute for evaluating the evidence.

For Lubaton, a refusal to testify should not automatically be equated with guilt, just as appearing before the impeachment court should not mean surrendering the right to refuse potentially self-incriminating questions.

Across these issues, Lubaton’s answers reveal a consistent concern: institutions should be judged by the quality of the process they follow.

That concern is also connected to his work as an academician. Lubaton said he teaches the Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 16, which focuses on peace, justice and strong institutions.

Through that lens, he views the impeachment proceedings.

Rather than treating the eventual verdict as the sole measure of the process, Lubaton identified several questions that observers should consider: whether institutions demonstrate independence, whether proceedings observe procedural fairness, whether the evidence presented is credible and whether the impeachment court reaches a reasoned decision.

Ultimately, he places public accountability at the center of the discussion.

The impeachment trial may provide the immediate subject of his analysis, but Lubaton’s larger concern reaches beyond the Senate chamber.

It is about what happens when institutions are tested — and whether, when faced with difficult constitutional questions, they choose to slow down, examine the rules and make decisions grounded in the process.

For Lubaton, that may be where the real lesson lies: Not simply in who wins or loses a proceeding, but in whether the institutions entrusted to decide it can show they followed the rules, weighed the evidence, and remained accountable to the public.