Spectacle versus substance

By Artchil B. Fernandez

Pagkahaba-haba man ng prusisyon, sa simbahan din ang tuloy. (No matter how long the procession is, it will surely wind up in church.) So, it’s finally here: the long-awaited, controversial impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. This week, the journey toward accountability began with the opening of the vice president’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

The voyage to the impeachment trial was long, arduous, and tumultuous. The Dutertes tried every dirty trick in the book to prevent the trial from happening. Last year, Sara Duterte was overwhelmingly impeached by the House, but the trial in the Senate did not proceed. Before the impeachment, the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) sect staged a massive rally to pressure the House, to no avail.

When the impeachment complaint reached the Senate, the Senate leadership sat on it instead of acting on it forthwith, as provided by the Constitution. Sara Duterte ran to the Supreme Court to prevent the trial from proceeding. The High Court sided with her, halting the trial by declaring the impeachment process constitutionally infirm. The ruling provided legal cover for the Senate to archive the impeachment complaint. Sara Duterte was saved.

This year, 257 House members – compared with 215 last year – voted to impeach Sara Duterte for a second time. She is the first impeachable official to be impeached twice. These are the four articles of impeachment:

Article I: Culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust related to her alleged misuse of confidential funds as head of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education worth a combined PHP 612.5 million.

Article II: Culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust related to her alleged unexplained wealth stemming from the discrepancy between her bank transaction records and her declared net worth in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).

Article III: Bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust related to her alleged monetary gifts to DepEd officials.

Article IV: Culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust related to her alleged threats to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, as well as her supposed efforts to incite sedition against the government.

The Senate, under different leadership, received the complaint while Sara Duterte once again sought help from the Supreme Court. This time, the High Tribunal refused to intervene in the second impeachment. In a desperate bid to prevent the trial from proceeding, the Dutertes, through the DDS senators, staged a coup in the Senate. The coup lasted less than a month before a new majority ousted them from power. With the failure of all the Dutertes’ attempts to stop the trial, it is now a reality in the Senate.

Based on the presentations during the first week of Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, the strategies of the prosecution and the defense are taking shape. It appears that the prosecution is focused on the substance of the impeachment complaints, while the defense will rely on spectacle to absolve the vice president of the high crimes of which she is accused.

The prosecution opened the trial by stressing the importance of accountability and transparency in public office. Rep. Jinky Luistro, the lead House prosecutor, emphasized that the prosecution would present evidence rather than propaganda or social media narratives, including official records, financial documents, government reports, video recordings, sworn statements, and independent findings by institutions created by law. If low-ranking officials are jailed for minor misdemeanors, high-ranking officials must be held accountable for high crimes.

The defense, on the other hand, relies on spectacle rather than on proving Sara Duterte’s innocence. Sheila Sison, the lead defense counsel, highlighted the vice president’s 32.2 million votes, stressing that her vote total was higher than those of the president and the House prosecutors. She sidestepped the issue of accountability, arguing that impeaching the vice president is akin to overturning those votes. Does winning an election allow public officials to do anything they please, including breaking the law and abusing their positions?

Sara Duterte further highlighted the spectacle when she went to the Senate on the second day of the trial, not to attend the hearing but to confer with her lawyers. She left before the trial started, but not before reciting an embellished line from “Invictus.” Her Senate extravaganza was calculated to reinforce the defense strategy.

Carlo Narvasa, one of the defense lawyers, brought the defense’s spectacle to the level of absurdity by raising objections almost every step of the way. He would not even allow prosecution lawyer Virgil Ligutan to finish his statement before objecting, repeating “objection” like a magical mantra. It is obvious that the defense is using technicalities to prevent the prosecution from presenting its evidence.

Meanwhile, the prosecution is strengthening the substance of its case by safeguarding the credibility of its witnesses and material evidence. The defense, instead of challenging the prosecution’s evidence, is resorting to legal witchcraft to sabotage the prosecution’s presentation. It does not matter if the defense appears ridiculous, silly, or hilarious as long as the spectacle is maintained and sustained.

The battle between spectacle and substance will play out before the nation in the coming weeks. The defense believes that, in this age of misinformation and disinformation, spectacle wins over the public. The prosecution, on the other hand, is convinced that the search for truth and accountability hinges on the substance of the case. Which one will eventually sway public opinion – spectacle or substance?