The prosecution was expected to finish presenting its evidence yesterday in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, following the cross-examination of its final witness, lawyer and accountant Alexander Cabrera. The defense will then have its turn to present evidence.
While I have not watched the full proceedings live, I have followed the trial closely through reports and highlights from mainstream news media. The trial deserves our attention. Every Filipino has a stake in whether this process works.
Last week, Cabrera, who was presented as an expert witness, told the impeachment court that Duterte and her husband had ?817.87 million in undeclared assets and income from 2022 to 2025. Generally, an ordinary witness testifies to facts personally perceived. An expert witness like Cabrera can go beyond identifying documents. He can analyze evidence and draw conclusions using his specialized knowledge. His conclusions are, of course, still subject to scrutiny and challenge. We expect the defense to challenge that assessment with its own documents and explanations.
What is at stake in this impeachment trial is the integrity of our institutions, or whatever remains of it. Our government institutions have suffered for decades from selective accountability, political accommodation, and officials who treat public office as family property. Indeed, we have reason to be angry or even to lose faith.
Yet government also employs honest, hardworking people who continue doing their jobs despite our political leaders. The prosecution witnesses from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Anti-Money Laundering Council, and other offices remind us that competence and integrity still exist inside government. These are people who keep records, understand their responsibilities, and can adequately explain their work under questioning.
We owe it to these public servants to pay attention to the impeachment trial and the process of accountability it represents. Defending democratic institutions means giving that process a chance to work.
I have observed, though, that the defense’s approach so far seems to cater to the crowd. That makes me doubt whether the defense can really produce evidence to counter or explain what the prosecution has presented in the impeachment trial. We will see in the coming days.
People watching this trial include self-respecting civil servants, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who earn a modest living, account for their income, and try to do their work honestly. They want to know whether the rules they follow also apply to those in power.
Then there is the geopolitical angle in this impeachment trial. Earlier testimony revealed that China-linked remittances went to Cale88, a banana chip exporter linked to the vice president’s husband. The AMLC clarified that its records did not establish that the funds originated from the Chinese government. Still, the transactions and the reported state links deserve serious investigation. The National Security Council has already said it will assess their possible security implications.
In my view, a Philippines with compromised officials and weakened institutions serves Beijing’s interests. Much of our institutional framework is an offshoot of American colonial rule. America’s rivals would gladly undermine it and then use its failure to argue that Western democratic frameworks cannot work in an Asian setting.
We need to shape up as a country, and fast. Our institutions are ours to strengthen and protect. Honest public servants still make them work. When our corrupt leaders weaken them from within, they make the country more vulnerable to foreign influence or domination.
This impeachment trial is an existential trial because its conduct and outcome will tell honest citizens and professionals who keep the system running whether accountability remains possible. Its outcome, along with reforms such as the passage of an anti-dynasty law, will help determine what kind of nation we become.