Sara Duterte impeachment: Defense presents witnesses to counter case

MANILA, Philippines — Several prosecutors may have said that the end is near for Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, but this does not mean there will be fewer battles and tense moments, with the defense panel starting to present witnesses meant to demolish the prosecution’s arguments.

The defense panel submitted documents to the Senate Impeachment Court showing that it would call around 25 witnesses to counter Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth and failing to properly disclose her assets in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

Article II is the sole remaining charge against Duterte after the prosecution withdrew three of the four articles last Oct. 13 to expedite the trial.

Article continues after this advertisement

According to the impeachment court, the defense requested subpoenas for several individuals, including a former law school dean, corporate counsel for companies linked to Duterte, local government officials in Davao City and Samal Island, and several banking executives from banks where the vice president supposedly has accounts.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

However, the defense hit a snag as early as Nov. 5, when former University of St. La Salle (USLS) law school dean Ralph Sarmiento — who would have been its first witness — declined to testify in Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Sarmiento, a legal scholar who previously questioned the Senate Impeachment Court’s decision to amend its earlier ruling on the minimum number of votes needed for a conviction, said he was declining because he could not be a “witness for either side,” citing the need to preserve the independence of his constitutional law scholarship and the impartiality of his legal opinions.

READ: Duterte impeachment: Ex-law school dean declines to testify for defense

The second witness, Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel for Gencorp Industries, Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corp., asked to be excused due to a medical procedure.

Article continues after this advertisement

Still, defense panel member and spokesperson Michael Poa believes their next witnesses will appear before the Senate Impeachment Court.

“I think it’s the lookout of the defense just to make sure these witnesses that we have subpoenaed will actually show up,” Poa said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Defense confident next witnesses will show up – Poa

Wrong foot?

Issues hounding the defense panel did not stop with its witnesses skipping the trial. Of the first three witnesses presented by Duterte’s lawyers, two earned the ire of senator-judges for supposedly lying and being evasive in their responses to questions.

On Nov. 9, several senator-judges were irked by the demeanor of Engr. Jaime Adalin, the city assessor of the Davao City local government unit, as he often said he had forgotten details of a recent foreign trip when the prosecution tried to question his credibility.

Adalin was presented to prove that the property owned by Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, was declared in her SALN as a residential lot in Davao’s Barangay 74-A.

According to Adalin, the 379-square-meter parcel of land in Davao City’s Matina Crossing, registered under Carpio’s name, was the same property listed by Duterte.

READ: Davao land assessor: Carpio’s Matina property listed in Duterte’s SALN

Adalin said he used a property identification map to confirm that the Matina Crossing property was the same as the lot in Barangay 74-A.

He also claimed that he counterchecked the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and tax declarations of the Matina Crossing property, which supposedly matched the Barangay 74-A lot’s assessed value of P82,046 and fair market value of P2,051,150.00.

However, private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. asked Adalin how he had reached that conclusion when it was impossible to confirm the property’s identity due to the absence of other key details in Duterte’s SALN.

Tolosa also noted that the acquisition costs of the two properties differed: Carpio supposedly bought the lot for P6 million, while Duterte declared an acquisition cost of P10 million. This led the prosecution to believe that these were two different properties and that Duterte had failed to declare one of them in her SALN.

READ: Assessor quizzed: Why confirm property when VP’s SALN has no details?

Patience wearing thin

Senator-judges’ irritation with defense witnesses continued on Nov. 10, after Davao City Accountant Vingelin Bajan eventually gave the same answers as Adalin — that she did not know or could not recall signing documents.

Bajan was presented by the defense to prove that the money Duterte received from Davao City in 2023 was for a late payment based on adjusted salaries.

However, Bajan had difficulty recalling details about her stint with accounting firm Ampil, Elises, Ciudadano & Co. CPAs, which, prosecution counsel Mae Divinagracia said, audited companies linked to Duterte, such as Gencorp.

READ: Davao accountant was partner at firm that audited VP-linked companies

During cross-examination, private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia confronted Bajan with the accounting firm’s Articles of Partnership submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which showed that she was a partner.

However, Bajan said she did not remember the documents, irking senator-judges, including Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, who said he found it questionable that Bajan could not remember details of her work when she was a certified public accountant herself.

Senator-judge Lito Lapid raised concerns that Bajan might be used by different sectors, as she failed to answer several simple questions.

Some wins

Despite their frustration with the two witnesses, some senator-judges acknowledged the defense’s arguments that the Carpio property could be the same lot declared by Duterte and that salary adjustments explained the payouts she received from Davao City.

Senator-judge Bam Aquino said that many of them actually believed the differential pay forwarded to Duterte was given in good faith.

Regarding the properties supposedly not declared by Duterte, Escudero asked the prosecution whether the discrepancy between the acquisition cost in the SALN and that in the Transfer Certificate of Title could have been due to the vice president overdeclaring her assets so that she would not get into trouble.

“But if I want to be safe, isn’t it better to over-declare what I pay instead of under-declaring it because I will be placed in this situation. Rather than declaring something lower than the actual (acquisition cost), wouldn’t it be possible that, for you to be safe, you would increase the value?” Escudero asked.

“Now my question is, is that a crime? Because right now, the crime is not to declare. Now is it your position that it’s also a crime, if at all, to over-declare?” he added.

What went before

Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives for a second time last May 11, 2026, after 257 lawmakers voted in favor of adopting the House committee on justice’s recommendation to impeach the vice president.

Two days later, the House forwarded the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. These contained the following allegations:

• Article I: Misuse, misappropriation and irregular use of confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education (DepEd)
• Article II: Amassing unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to Duterte’s lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official
• Article III: Bribery when she gave monetary gifts or payments to DepEd officials to induce the violation and circumvention of procurement and other related laws
• Article IV: Grave threats for claiming that she had contracted an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Marcos, and the former House speaker Martin Romualdez

At the start of the trial last July 6, the prosecution began presenting evidence on Article IV. The prosecution eventually decided to drop Article III to expedite the hearings.

However, on October 13, lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro announced that the prosecution would no longer pursue Articles I, III and IV — a decision opposed by the defense.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Part of the allegations under Article II is based on the testimony of financial forensic analyst Alexander Cabrera, who claimed that an analysis of Duterte’s financial transactions would show that she failed to declare at least P817,874,867 in her SALNs. /mcm