Legislative oversight, trial procedure, and evidentiary thresholds have taken center stage in the Senate Impeachment Court as House prosecutors prepare to challenge the relevance and scope of the defense’s proposed witness list ahead of upcoming proceedings.
The prosecution is already prepared to scrutinize Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s defense witnesses, particularly those whose testimony may have little bearing on the allegations of unexplained wealth against her.
This was announced by House prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon adding that the prosecutors would closely examine the relevance of the 24 prospective defense witnesses, including bank officials, corporate representatives and local government personnel, when the Senate impeachment trial resumes Monday, Nov. 9.
“Kaya nga ang sinasabi natin, kailangan ho witnesses, hindi weaknesses ’yun pong isasalang po ng depensa sa darating pong mga araw,” Ridon said at the news forum.
He questioned whether the proposed witnesses could directly answer the financial evidence already presented by the prosecution.
“Kasi katulad ng binabanggit ho nitong nagdaan, parang wala po doon sa witness list ’yun pong tingin ko makakapagpaliwanag doon po sa punto per punto ng mga paratang at mga naipasok pong mga ebidensya sa formal offer of evidence,” Ridon also said.
Ridon stressed that the prosecution would give Duterte’s lawyers sufficient opportunity to present their case but would object to irrelevant testimony.
“Well, siyempre, to be fair, no, I don’t want to be unfair on the defense kasi siyempre we would want to give them the widest latitude to present the vice president’s defense,” Ridon also said.
“Pero kung tingin naman natin these are immaterial, irrelevant witnesses that are being subjected to the stand, of course we will object to it,” Ridon also added.
Ridon acknowledged that most of the proposed witnesses appeared generally connected to the unexplained wealth allegations, although their actual testimony would still have to be assessed.
He specifically questioned the inclusion of Quezon City Prosecutor Vimar Barcellano, saying it was unclear what the official could contribute to the defense.
“So hindi ko alam kung may alam ba siya tungkol sa 800 million [pesos],” Ridon also said.
House prosecution legal spokesperson and private prosecutor Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. similarly questioned the purpose of some proposed witnesses.
“Meron pang ibang mga testigo pero hindi nila, aside from the banks, walang explanation kung anong magiging testimony nito,” Tolosa said.
Tolosa said the Davao City treasurer might be called to explain payments or other compensation allegedly received by Duterte from the local government during her term as vice president. He stressed that this was only his expectation based on the witness list.
On the proposed bank witnesses, Ridon said their testimony could not change the balances reflected in official bank records.
“Ang mahalaga pong kailangan pong masapol dito, whether ang ipatawag po ay bank manager, branch manager, bank official or bank lawyer, hindi po nagbabago ’yung laman ng bank account,” Ridon also said.
“Ibig sabihin kung ang 100 million [pesos] ang laman po noon, kung 50 million [pesos] ang laman po noon, kung 100 pesos ang laman po noon, ’yun pa rin po ’yun,” Ridon also added.
Tolosa said prosecutors were willing to agree with the defense on undisputed facts to avoid unnecessary delays, particularly when bank representatives were being called merely to identify letters allegedly sent by Duterte or her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
“And we’ll probably be even willing to stipulate on the matters that they’ll testify on,” Tolosa also said.
“We don’t see any need to belabor the point. We can just stipulate on those para mapabilis,” Tolosa also added.
Ridon said prosecutors were also prepared to cross-examine defense witnesses and raise objections, just as Duterte’s lawyers had done during the prosecution’s presentation of evidence.
“Pero ang biro nga ho namin, kung magaling mag-object ang depensa sa direct testimony ng prosecution, magaling din pong mag-object ang prosecution pagka panahon na po ng depensa na magpresenta po ng ebidensya,” Ridon also said.
The Senate impeachment court on Thursday admitted key financial evidence presented by the House prosecution, including Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, bank and tax records, corporate documents and much of forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera’s report.
The court rejected the defense’s general objections that the documents were improperly obtained through subpoenas or were inadmissible because they were not attached to the original impeachment complaint.
The House prosecution has formally rested its case after presenting financial records and forensic accounting findings alleging at least P817.87 million in undeclared assets and unexplained wealth from 2022 to 2025.
Article II, involving alleged unexplained wealth, is the sole remaining impeachment charge against Duterte.
The vice president has denied wrongdoing, while her lawyers have disputed the prosecution’s evidence.
The defense is scheduled to present its case over several hearing dates through Nov. 23, with House prosecutors retaining the right to cross-examine its witnesses.