Judicial oversight, constitutional accountability, and formal evidentiary standards have taken precedence in the Senate impeachment trial as prosecution leaders emphasize that trial outcomes must be governed by legal proof rather than public perception metrics.
THE House prosecution has rejected treating survey scores as a verdict in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment trial, saying the financial evidence and the defense’s answers should determine the outcome.
Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon made the point, two days before the defense is scheduled to begin presenting evidence on the unexplained wealth charge, the remaining impeachment case.
“Hindi po ito beauty contest, hindi po ito Miss Universe, hindi po ito pasikatan, hindi po ito popularity contest,” Ridon said.
He said the prosecution would continue performing its duty to substantiate the allegations against Duterte. Survey results were part of the public discussion, alongside the panel’s work before the Senate impeachment court.
“So of course we are noting it,” Ridon also said.
The SWS results from its September 21 to 27 survey of 1,500 adults put satisfaction with the defense at 47 percent and dissatisfaction at 24 percent. For the prosecution, 30 percent were satisfied and 35 percent dissatisfied. The survey also found 78 percent considered Duterte’s personal testimony important. Satisfaction with either panel and the importance of hearing from the respondent answer different questions.
Private prosecutor Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. described the SWS findings as outdated in light of the trial’s subsequent developments.
“So that’s why we think it’s stale,” Tolosa said.
He pointed instead to the demand for an explanation directly from Duterte about the records presented during the proceedings.
“Ang lumalabas, overwhelmingly, ang public gusto nilang marinig mismo sa VP kung anong magiging explanation niya, anong magiging tugon niya dito sa mga ebidensya na inilatag na ng prosecution,” Tolosa also said.
Tolosa acknowledged surveys “could provide valuable guidance,” while placing the decision on Duterte’s fitness in the evidence presented by both sides.
The prosecution has finished presenting its case. Starting November 9, the defense has its scheduled opportunity to answer Article II through testimony and documents, with prosecutors prepared to cross-examine its witnesses.
Article II accuses Duterte of alleged unexplained wealth, SALN violations, and prohibited business interests.
“At the end of the day ang importante dito, yung ebidensya na ipapresenta ng magkabilang panig dapat yan ang magdedetermine para makita natin if the VP is still fit to hold her position as the 2nd highest official of the land,” Tolosa also said.