Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case took a procedural turn Thursday when Malacañang cautioned senator-judges against blurring the line between arbiter and advocate, warning that some had begun questioning witnesses in ways that resembled defense work rather than neutral fact-finding.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro, herself a trial lawyer, drew a sharp distinction between the two roles permitted inside the impeachment court. She said the proper function of a senator-judge is to seek clarity, not to spar with those on the stand.
“Judges should ask for clarification, asking clarificatory questions and not to cross-examine the witness. They should not be involved in a debate with the witness, as their mandate is to uncover the truth and not to cover up,” she said.
Castro framed the reminder around fidelity to legal standards and evidence, urging those hearing the case not to distort what the record shows.
“Kung ano ang sinasabi ng batas at ng ebidensya, sana huwag walisin at pahinain ang katotohanan at ilihis kung ano ang sinasabi ng batas. Marami kasing lumalabas sa impeachment, ayon sa PCO, na nag-aaktong lawyer na hindi dapat. Dahil dapat manatiling impartial at walang bias ang mga senator-judges. Hindi nila mandatong walisin ang katotohanan. Huwag silang magdala ng walis sa Senado,” Castro said.
While she would not name anyone specifically, Castro acknowledged it was evident that certain senator-judges had pressed prosecution witnesses at length.
The Palace comments followed a pointed back-and-forth on the trial’s 13th day between Sen. Imee Marcos and Commission on Audit representative Roderick Wamil, who took questions about a notice of disallowance tied to confidential funds held by the Office of the Vice President.
Wamil told the court that the governing joint circular treats such a notice as establishing a prima facie presumption of personal use whenever the required documentation is absent. Pressed by Marcos on whether auditors had concluded that acknowledgment receipts or backup papers were fabricated, he said that verifying authenticity fell outside what a compliance audit is designed to examine.
Those exchanges are unfolding as the court works through Article II of the impeachment complaint, which raises questions about unexplained wealth, gaps in Duterte’s asset declarations covering 2022 through 2024, and her handling of business interests she was expected to give up.
