Weaponized process

Selective justice has become a defining feature of the continuing effort to remove Vice President Sara Duterte from office and derail her political future. The campaign is being driven by allegations that her supporters contend were concocted to undermine the 2028 presidential frontrunner.

The impeachment case against Duterte now rests on Article II, which accuses her of amassing unexplained wealth disproportionate to her income, failing to accurately disclose her assets in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and unlawfully retaining business interests while serving as Vice President.

After presenting their evidence, House prosecutors withdrew three of the four impeachment articles in a move that critics viewed as a calculated maneuver, to effectively deprive the defense of the opportunity to rebut the allegations in those articles.

The crux of the charges against VP Duterte is that her declared wealth rose from P7.25 million in 2007 to P98.656 million in 2025 based on her SALNs. Bank records showed 30 active accounts holding P190 million, against P13.32 million declared.

Forensic analyst Alexander Cabrera estimated P817.88 million in undeclared assets and unexplained wealth for her and her husband, Manases Carpio, from 2022 to 2025.

In the latest episode of the hearings, it appeared that the properties questioned by the prosecution had, in fact, been declared by the Vice President, contrary to the prosecution’s claim.

The property identified by the prosecution as being in Barangay Matina Crossing appeared to have been properly disclosed, as evidence reportedly showed that Barangay Matina Crossing and Barangay 74-A referred to the same location.

Moreover, the transaction documents presented by the prosecution contained discrepancies between the assessed values and market values of the properties, raising questions about the accuracy and consistency of its claims.

Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin, the defense’s first witness, testified that Matina Crossing and Barangay 74-A were the same location. He said the city’s land use plan and barangay records identified the area that way.

That raises the question of who has the burden of proof. The prosecution has the burden of proof on the property they’re talking about. The witness has a convincing assessment that the conflicting amount was most likely the result of the difference between the specific market value and the assessed value.

VP Duterte’s spokesperson, Paolo Duterte, underscored that the withdrawal of the three impeachment articles was a failure of the prosecution because it meant they didn’t want to take the risk, even though they had enough evidence to prove guilt.

The defense team thus demonstrated that properties alleged as unexplained wealth had been declared in the SALN, with any discrepancies minor and insufficient to prove fraud.

Payment of delayed salary differentials from a prior office also did not violate constitutional rules against double compensation if it was not concurrent with VP Duterte’s salary, weakening the prosecution’s argument on unlawful enrichment related to salary.

Despite several prosecution claims being exposed during the trial as false, some observers believe that certain senator-judges appeared to be siding with the prosecution.

Rather than restraining the proceedings, they are accused of hurling accusations at the defense witness, in effect subjecting the witness to harassment and intimidation. Who, then, is expected to stand up to them?

The impeachment trial is considered sui generis, or unique in nature. Senator-judges, for instance, may interrupt proceedings at any time and ask questions to clarify matters, even those not directly related to the charges being prosecuted. But such latitude should not be taken as a license to cross the line.

That procedural leeway, critics argue, is being exploited, allowing a majority of the senator-judges and the House prosecution panel to gang up on the defense witnesses.

The resulting spectacle raises questions about the fairness of the proceedings and whether the trial is being driven by the pursuit of truth or by the overriding objective to remove the Vice President from office.