On the twenty-third day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, a constitutional question older than the trial itself moved to the center of the proceedings. When prosecutors announced they would forgo fifteen witnesses and instead call Duterte directly to the stand, her defense invoked the right against self-incrimination — a protection the Philippine Constitution extends not to the powerful alone, but to every citizen. The moment crystallized a tension that has run beneath the trial since its opening: whether the accused must answer in her own voice, or whether the law permits he
Duterte's counsel invokes constitutional right against self-incrimination in impeachment trial
The accused cannot be compelled to testify against herself.
Mark
Why does the Constitution protect someone from testifying against themselves? Isn't the whole point of a trial to get at the truth?
Mimi
The protection exists because the law assumes the accused has a right not to incriminate themselves—that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not with the defendant to prove their own innocence. It's a check on state power.
Luke
Right, but here's the question: does that protection apply the same way in an impeachment trial as it does in a criminal trial? Those are different proceedings with different rules. The source doesn't say the court has ruled on that distinction yet.
Mark
So the prosecution could argue that impeachment is different—that a public official answering charges in a political trial is different from a criminal defendant?
Mimi
Exactly. That's likely what they'll argue when they file their formal motion. The defense is getting ahead of it by invoking the constitutional principle now.
Luke
And we don't know yet whether the impeachment court will accept that argument or require Duterte to testify. The source says Sison reserved the right to formally respond, which means this is still unresolved.
Mark
What about the fifteen witnesses the prosecution dropped? Why would they do that?
Mimi
The reporting doesn't explain their reasoning. They could be consolidating their case, or they might believe Duterte's own testimony would be more powerful than hearing from other witnesses. We don't actually know.
Luke
That's an important gap. Dropping fifteen witnesses is a major strategic move, and the source doesn't tell us why. It's worth watching what the prosecution says when they file their motion.
Mark
And if the court rules that she has to testify?
Mimi
Then we'd see the vice president on the stand answering questions about the confidential funds and the other charges. That would be unprecedented in this trial.
Luke
But that's still hypothetical. Right now, all we have is the defense's constitutional objection and the prosecution's stated intent. The actual ruling hasn't happened.
Le Pouls
- Prosecutors made a dramatic strategic pivot, abandoning fifteen planned witnesses for Article I charges and staking their case instead on calling Duterte herself to testify.
- Defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison immediately raised a constitutional wall, arguing that compelling the accused to testify against herself violates a foundational guarantee enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
- The clash is not merely procedural — it forces the impeachment court toward a ruling on where compulsion ends and constitutional protection begins, a question with consequences far beyond this trial.
- The defense holds its ground, insisting that Duterte's active legal representation demonstrates sufficient engagement with the process, and reserves a formal response pending the prosecution's official motion.
On the twenty-third day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, a constitutional question older than the trial itself moved to the center of the proceedings. When prosecutors announced they would forgo fifteen witnesses and instead call Duterte directly to the stand, her defense invoked the right against self-incrimination — a protection the Philippine Constitution extends not to the powerful alone, but to every citizen. The moment crystallized a tension that has run beneath the trial since its opening: whether the accused must answer in her own voice, or whether the law permits her to speak only through counsel.
On the twenty-third day of her impeachment trial, Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team drew a constitutional line when prosecutors signaled their intention to call her directly to the witness stand. Lead counsel Atty. Sheila Sison objected on grounds rooted in Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution — the guarantee that no person may be compelled to give testimony that incriminates themselves. Sison was careful to frame this not as a tactical maneuver but as a matter of principle: a protection that belongs to every Filipino, not only those in high office.
The confrontation followed a significant shift in the prosecution's approach. Prosecutor Lorna Kapunan announced they would abandon fifteen remaining witnesses for Article I of the charges — covering alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of confidential funds — and instead call Duterte herself as their central witness. The move compressed the trial's trajectory and sharpened a tension that has persisted since proceedings began in July.
Sison did not foreclose all response, reserving the right to file formal objections once the prosecution submits an official motion or subpoena. But she restated the defense's consistent position: Duterte's presence through counsel is legally sufficient, and an accused who mounts an active legal defense has demonstrated meaningful engagement with the process. The impeachment court will now likely be forced to rule on where the boundary between legitimate compulsion and constitutional protection actually lies — a question whose answer will shape not only this trial, but the rights of the accused in Philippine proceedings for years to come.
On the twenty-third day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, her defense team drew a constitutional line. When prosecutors signaled their intention to call Duterte herself to the witness stand, her lead counsel Atty. Sheila Sison objected on grounds that reach back to the foundation of Philippine law: the accused cannot be compelled to testify against herself.
Sison framed the issue as a structural problem, not a tactical one. Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, she argued, establishes a guarantee that no person shall be forced to give testimony that incriminates them. This is not a privilege reserved for the powerful or the accused in high office—it is a fundamental protection that extends to every Filipino. The prosecution's plan to put Duterte on the stand, in Sison's reading, collided directly with that constitutional safeguard.
The moment arrived after prosecutor Lorna Kapunan announced a significant shift in the prosecution's strategy. They would abandon fifteen remaining witnesses they had planned to call for Article I of the impeachment charges, which centers on allegations of misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of confidential funds. In place of that witness parade, Kapunan said, they intended to call Duterte herself—the person at the center of the accusations.
Sison did not close the door entirely. She said the defense reserved the right to file a formal response once the prosecution submitted an official motion or subpoena. But she made clear that the constitutional objection stood as a matter of principle. She also restated a position the defense had maintained since the trial began in July: Duterte's presence in the courtroom through her lawyers was sufficient. The fact that she had sent counsel to defend her, Sison suggested, demonstrated her engagement with the process. An accused who had no interest in the trial would not bother mounting a legal defense at all.
The exchange underscored a central tension in the trial. Prosecutors have repeatedly called for Duterte to appear and answer questions directly. The defense has consistently resisted, arguing that constitutional protections and the right to counsel provide an adequate alternative. Now, with the prosecution narrowing its witness list and pivoting toward calling the vice president herself, that tension had sharpened into a formal legal dispute—one that will likely require the impeachment court to rule on where the line between compulsion and constitutional protection actually falls.
Citations marquantes
There is an innate problem in that kind of request because the Constitution prohibits this kind of testimonial compulsion from the accused herself.— Atty. Sheila Sison, Vice President Duterte's lead defense counsel
This is a fundamental right from the Constitution itself, that protects not just the vice president but any Filipino.— Atty. Sheila Sison
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Inquirer.net ↗
Crime & Justice