THE ILLOGICAL OPENING STATEMENT OF THE SARA DUTERTE DEFENSE

[An MCT Commentary]

I watched people online praising Sheila Sison's opening statement like she had just argued the greatest legal defense in Philippine history.

Natawa ako.

Because when she was done, the best I could muster was: what the fuck was that?

That is the opening for the most consequential impeachment trial the Philippines has seen? That is what 16 lawyers, months of preparation, and the full weight of a Fortun Narvasa law firm produced for Day 1?

Let me tell you what I mean.

THE 32 MILLION VOTES ARGUMENT

Sison opened with this: Sara Duterte was elected by more than 32 million Filipinos. More than the votes of the sitting president. More than any single House member who is now prosecuting her.

I understand the rhetorical weight of that number. Thirty-two million is supposed to make you feel like the impeachment is an attack on the people who voted for her.

But Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution is clear. The Vice President may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

No exception for officials who win by large margins. None.

Joseph Estrada won the presidency in 1998, but he still got convicted in the Sandiganbayan (the anti-corruption court that handles cases against public officials). Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo won elections and still faced plunder charges. Popularity has never been a legal shield in this country, and the Constitution was never written to make it one.

What Sison essentially argued is that removing Sara Duterte would undo the will of 32 million voters. But the Constitution specifically created impeachment for exactly this situation: when an elected official commits impeachable offenses. The provision exists because the framers knew that winning an election does not place a person above accountability. If vote count were a defense, the Constitution would say so.

It does not.

TURNING THE TABLES ON THE HOUSE

Sison's second major point was about the House Committee on Justice's conduct. She called it a "mini-trial," a "vast fishing expedition," and accused the committee of curating evidence to construct a case against the Vice President even before the case reached the Senate.

(I will be honest. When I heard the prosecution use that "mini-trial" framing during one of their press conferences weeks before July 6, I cringed. I knew someone on the other side was writing it down. And sure enough, there it was on Day 1, turned into a weapon and aimed right back at them.)

The Supreme Court (SC) did, in fact, rule in July 2025 that the first set of impeachment articles was unconstitutional, specifically for violating the one-year bar rule. The SC voided those articles. That is on record. The defense cited this ruling repeatedly as proof that the House had a pattern of acting improperly.

The SC's ruling voided the first impeachment on a procedural issue: the one-year bar. The Court explicitly stated it was not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her. The ruling did not say she was innocent. It said the process that produced that particular set of articles was flawed. Those are two very different things.

The impeachment trial that opened on July 6, 2026 is based on articles filed through a separate, new process that began in February 2026, after the SC's ruling lifted the one-year bar. The charges themselves, the confidential funds, the unexplained wealth, the threats, largely mirror what was in the first impeachment. The SC did not void those allegations. It voided the procedural path that brought them to the Senate the first time. Using that ruling to discredit the substance of what is now on trial is a different argument entirely, and the defense knows it.

The defense is asking the Senate to focus on how the House gathered evidence rather than on what the evidence actually shows. "The process was messy" does not automatically mean "the facts are wrong."

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEE, NOT FOR ME

Sison told the court that public office is a public trust, and that this obligation applies not just to the Vice President but also to the prosecutors.

She is right. In principle.

But there is something odd about spending your opening statement reminding the court that the other side also has constitutional responsibilities. The four articles of impeachment are about Sara Duterte. Not about the House prosecutors. Not about Gerville Luistro or any of the 11 lawmakers sitting at the prosecution table.

The defense tried to turn a trial about one person's conduct into a referendum on everyone's conduct. When you cannot easily answer the charges, you question the motives and character of the people bringing the charges. Classic.

What stood out to me is that the opening spent more time on what the prosecution allegedly did wrong than on what Sara Duterte allegedly did right. When your client faces allegations of P612.5 million in questionable confidential fund disbursements, fabricated receipts, non-existent payees, and a Commission on Audit (COA) disallowance, your opening statement is the best time to start building a counter-story.

The defense did not do that.

THE COA ANGLE

Sison acknowledged the COA's findings but argued that the notice of disallowance is "not final" because there is a pending motion for reconsideration.

Technically accurate as a legal point. COA decisions go through a process, and a notice of disallowance can be appealed.

But the COA issued a notice of disallowance covering P73,287,000 of OVP (Office of the Vice President) confidential funds in 2024. The OVP appealed. The COA denied the appeal in April 2026, affirming that the funds were spent on activities unrelated to their intended purpose. Intelligence-gathering and surveillance funds were spent on furniture, tables, chairs, and computers. And P69.78 million was listed as "rewards" for informants, with no documentation proving the success of any intelligence activity.

The commission has already denied the appeal once. Framing the findings as though they are in genuine doubt stretches the argument thin.

THE MARCOS APPROVED IT ARGUMENT

Sison raised one more point on the confidential funds that got less attention than it deserved.

She told the court that it was then-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary Amenah Pangandaman who issued a memorandum recommending the approval of the OVP's request for confidential funds. That former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin signed the approval on November 28, 2022, by order of the president. That the DBM issued a Special Allotment Release Order on December 13, 2022. And that the funds were released to the OVP on December 20, 2022.

Her point: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. approved this. The DBM approved this. The money was released through a documented process with signatures from people appointed by and answerable to the President.

So how can it be a crime?

On the surface, that sounds like a reasonable argument. If the President approved the release, if the DBM signed off, if everything followed the proper channel, then the Vice President was just receiving funds she was authorized to receive.

The release was not the crime. And to be fair, whether the OVP should have been entitled to confidential funds in the first place is a separate conversation worth having on another day, because that question alone has enough material for its own piece.

What the COA flagged was not the approval. It flagged the spending. The disallowance is not about whether Sara Duterte had the right to receive confidential funds. It is about what she did with them after they landed in the OVP account. Intelligence and surveillance funds spent on furniture and computers. P69.78 million in informant rewards with no documentation of any intelligence activity. Receipts signed by people the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) says do not exist.

Getting approval to receive money and spending that money properly are two different things. Sison conflated the two, and she did it in a part of the speech most people were not paying close attention to.

Marcos approved the release. Marcos did not approve spending surveillance funds on office chairs.

That distinction the defense glossed over. And the prosecution will spend 31 trial days making sure the senator-judges do not miss it.

THE EMPTY CHAIR

Sara Duterte did not attend her own impeachment trial on July 6. Her camp confirmed this beforehand. The defense's position was that the Vice President has a right to appear through counsel, and that choosing not to personally appear does not imply a lack of transparency.

True as a matter of law. Defendants can appear through counsel.

But Sison's opening spent considerable time on accountability, fairness, and the rule of law. It quoted the Supreme Court on justice. It invoked the Constitution. It talked about public trust.

The person at the center of all of it was not in the room.

THE DAMAGE THEY DID TO THEMSELVES

Step back from the legal arguments for a second and look at what the public actually saw on July 6.

They saw a lead counsel spend the better part of an opening statement talking about process violations, prosecutorial abuse, and the sanctity of 32 million votes. They saw a defense team that came prepared with grievances but not with answers. And they saw an empty chair where the Vice President was supposed to be.

For someone who still has political ambitions, and the 2028 presidential race is not a secret whisper anymore, that is a terrible picture to put in front of the Filipino public on the first day of the most watched trial in recent memory.

Sara Duterte's greatest political asset has always been her image as someone who does not flinch. Her father built a career on showing up, on being present, on projecting toughness even when things were ugly. She inherited that brand. It is why 32 million people voted for her in 2022. They believed she would not run from a fight.

She did not show up to her own fight.

And the opening statement her lawyers delivered did not help. A weak opening in a high-stakes trial does not just hurt the legal case. It plants a question in the mind of every voter watching: if she is innocent, why does her defense sound like it is buying time? If she has nothing to hide, why is her team redirecting to the House instead of redirecting to the facts?

Perceptions calcify fast in Philippine politics. The Marcoses know this. The Estradas know this. Once the public starts reading a politician as someone on the run, that reading sticks.

Day 1 gave the public a reason to start reading Sara Duterte that way. Her lawyers gave it to them. And she was not even there to push back.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Some people will read this and say: you do not understand the strategy.

I do.

Atty. Michael Poa, the defense team's spokesperson, told reporters before the trial even started that public opinion could play a significant role in the proceedings, that senator-judges can be swayed by public perception, and that the defense was "very conscious" of embedding public opinion awareness into their legal strategy.

The opening statement was not designed for the Senate. It was designed for the comment section.

The 32 million votes line was not a legal argument. It was a talking point for supporters to repeat online. The "mini-trial" and "fishing expedition" language was not for the senator-judges. It was for the Facebook posts and YouTube comment threads that would run all week. The goal was to give Sara Duterte's base something to rally around: the House is corrupt, the process was rigged, and the votes of 32 million people are under attack.

A real strategy. One that has worked before in this country. You do not always win in the courtroom. Sometimes you win in the court of public opinion, and that pressure eventually finds its way back into the proceedings, because the senator-judges are also politicians watching their own numbers.

I understand that. And that is exactly why it needs to be called out.

If the defense wins this case by drowning the substance in procedural noise and social media momentum, then what we just watched was not a legal defense. It was a performance designed to exhaust the public's attention before the actual evidence gets a chance to speak.

Thirty trial days. The prosecution has 62.

The evidence has not been presented yet. The witnesses have not taken the stand. The documents have not been authenticated and cross-examined.

If Day 1 is any indication, the defense's plan is to make sure you are already tired and confused long before any of that happens.

And if this is the kind of argument this defense team plans to continue with for the next 30 trial days, then Sara Duterte deserves a refund.