‘CONDUCT ON TRIAL’: Duterte impeachment hinges on public trust – Drilon

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon said it is immaterial in the impeachment trial whether Vice President Sara Duterte actually intended to carry out her alleged assassination threat, or whether her remarks were rhetorical, hyperbolic, or never meant to be taken literally.

The former justice secretary said the real issue before the Senate is whether such statements constitute a betrayal of public trust and are consistent with the judgment, restraint, and standards of conduct expected of the country’s second-highest constitutional official.

“The defense may attempt to bury it behind technicalities, but procedural objections cannot overshadow the constitutional questions the impeachment court is duty-bound to resolve,” Drilon said.

Drilon made the remarks after the first three days of the impeachment trial, where much of the proceedings centered on objections over the authentication and identification of a video showing Duterte’s controversial statements.

Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, is expected to appear before the court when the impeachment resumes on Monday.

“The more fundamental issue is a constitutional one: Do we, as a nation, expect and require our highest public officials to speak and conduct themselves in this manner?” Drilon said.

“If such statements were in fact made, are they consistent with the dignity, restraint, and sense of responsibility that the office demands?” he added. “Those are ultimately questions of constitutional accountability, not merely criminal law.”

According to Drilon, impeachment is fundamentally different from a criminal prosecution. He said the Constitution recognizes “betrayal of public trust” as a distinct ground for impeachment because the inquiry goes beyond proving the elements of a criminal offense.

Drilon sat in two impeachment cases and recounted his experience in his memoir, “Being Frank.”

In a radio interview on Saturday, Drilon said the lengthy direct examination of the National Bureau of Investigation witness and the repeated objections from the defense could have been shortened had both sides stipulated on undisputed facts, particularly the authenticity of the video recording.

According to Drilon, Duterte herself has never denied making the statements captured in the recording.

He said the proceedings were unnecessarily prolonged because the parties did not first agree on facts that were no longer in dispute.

“Ang dapat, magkaroon ng stipulation of facts. Iyon ba ay in dispute o hindi? Para ang pag-uusapan na lang ay kung ito ay impeachable offense. Ang nangyari ay humaba,” he said.

“Hindi ito trial kung guilty siya ng grave threats o hindi. Ang trial ay kung yung bang behavior ay karapat-dapat sa isang bise president. Is that betrayal of public trust kung sinabi mong papatayin kita,” Drilon said.

“Whether it is a grave threat or a threat, it does not matter. Sa akin po, ang importante ay kung ito po ay act na sapat upang siya ay ma-declare na guilty. Hindi criminal offense ang pinag-uusapan dito kung hindi betrayal of public trust,” he added.

The defense may continue to focus on the identification and authentication of the video, but the issue before the impeachment court is not complicated, the former justice secretary said.

The impeachment court will only determine whether the Nov. 23, 2024 statements constitute culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust by allegedly contracting the assassination of the President, the First Lady, and the former House Speaker, making grave threats, and actively inciting sedition against the Republic.

Drilon also questioned the defense’s continued challenge to the video’s authenticity, noting that it had likewise relied on the same video during the presentation of Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez.

He said the defense may have committed a legal blunder by arguing that Duterte was under extreme stress when she made the statements, saying the explanation could raise more questions about her judgment and fitness for public office than help her case.

For Drilon, the prosecution has gained an early advantage, not because it has already proved its case, but because it has largely kept the proceedings focused on the Vice President’s own statements, which are the subject of one of the impeachment articles.

“The trial is, of course, still in its early stages, and much evidence remains to be presented. But after three days, the prosecution would seem to hold a modest advantage, both in terms of keeping the legal issues centered on the constitutional inquiry and, perhaps just as importantly in a proceeding of this nature, in shaping the broader public narrative surrounding the case,” Drilon said.