Legal implications of not attending one's trial

Of course, there is a difference between an impeachment proceeding and a criminal trial. In impeachment, the respondent is not obliged to attend in person and he or she can only attend through counsel. But the people would think that non-appearance is either driven by an irresistible fear of being shamed by adverse documentary evidence and testimonies, or a virtual admission of guilt.

In criminal prosecution, if the accused fails to attend a trial without justification, the trial judge may forthwith issue a bench warrant for his arrest. If he is under bail, the bond may be cancelled and the accused immediately arrested. But if the accused has already been arraigned, and the absence is justifiable, the trial may proceed in absentia. Fundamentally, one's presence in court is a right of the accused which he or she can waive. That presence is to make sure that the rights of an accused under the Bill of Rights to, among others, confront the witnesses against him or her.

From a layman's point of view, and in the context of the Duterte impeachment trial, the people are beginning to murmur and post in social media that when one is innocent, he or she should act as brave as a lion to be right there and listen to the charges and accusations. Being away or being indifferent can be interpreted as either a gross disrespect to the trial judges or a strong fear of being seen shamed by the seriousness of the indictments or both. The people expect a vice president to face the music and answer the charges in person.

Not attending the trial is becoming to be a Duterte brand of judicial and extrajudicial response and behavior, Like her father in The Hague who persisted in continually refusing to appear before the ICC despite all the facilities and the ease, as well as all the facilities of attending, the honorable vice president does not seem to give importance to the draconian charges against her. She engages the services of multiple lawyers who all appear before the Senate impeachment court, while their client has chosen to be away.

In civil cases and administrative proceedings the absence of the respondent or defendant may lead the judge to declare him or her in default and allow the plaintiff or complainant to present evidence "ex-parte". From the mindset of judges, respondents who do not appear do not show respect for the court or the administrative tribunal. Such kind of behavior may even antagonize the judges and may lead to an adverse decision. That is why, as a lawyer, I always ask my client to be present and show their faces before the judges.

The presence of the client inspires the lawyers to do their best and show their worth. Conversely, the absence of the client may lead the lawyers to become less focused, less committed and less passionate. My overall and bottomline assessment is that the absence of the vice president during a very far-reaching legal proceeding against her would do her more harm than good. At the end of the day, this is something she may later regret about.

The impeachment is, aside from being a legal proceeding, is much more a battle for the hearts and minds of the people especially that she is running for president in 2028. Her chosen absence during the crucial days of the impeachment, her obvious nonchalance or pretended indifference may be the greatest regret of her life. Let's see if she will not curse the day she opted to snub the judges who will decide her fate. I do hope she won't.