The Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense returned to the Senate on Thursday 12 November, as the trial of the vice president entered its 43rd day of hearings. The defence continued to present its witnesses, in a case that has become one of the most closely watched political proceedings in the Philippines. The day brought a significant change of strategy, with the defence abandoning a key witness and turning instead to testimony about personal spending.
The Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense dropped its plan to call Paul Roderick Ysmael, an official of the Bank of the Philippine Islands. He was the only bank witness retained from 16 initially listed, and his testimony was expected to address financial records at the centre of the case. His lawyer, Michael Poa, had already admitted in court that he was the author of the letter that the witness was due to authenticate. With that admission on the record, the value of calling the witness had faded, and the defence chose to move on.
The witness of the day was lawyer Anel Martin Antero, a long time friend of the vice president and of her husband Mans Carpio. He was questioned about a dinner in Tokyo in May 2023 and a credit card charge of more than 200,000 pesos at the Ginza Inakaya restaurant. The details were small in themselves, but they form part of a larger case about spending, disclosure and unexplained wealth that the prosecution has built over many weeks.
Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense turns to spending testimony
The Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense put Antero forward as a witness who could speak directly about the couple’s private spending. Antero confirmed that he was part of Duterte’s legal team, and he said he would not lie for her or for her husband. At the same time, he acknowledged that he could not remember an alleged payment of 580,000 pesos raised by the prosecution. That gap in memory left the prosecution’s question unanswered, and it showed how much of the trial now turns on recollection of specific transactions.
Another witness, Chadrin Parian, told the court that Mans Carpio had sponsored shoes for children from the Elite Philippines basketball club. The purchase involved a charge of 256,882.50 pesos at Nike in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The testimony added another item to the list of luxury and personal spending that the prosecution has presented, and it illustrated the kind of detail the trial is now examining, down to individual receipts and individual shops.
The Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense is contesting Article II of the complaint, which deals with alleged unexplained wealth and a failure to declare assets correctly. That article goes to the heart of the case against the vice president, because it asks whether her declared wealth matches her actual spending and assets. The defence has sought to answer that question through its own witnesses, but the decision to drop the bank witness means one of its strongest potential lines of evidence will not be heard.
The Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense had requested 25 subpoenas, of which 22 were served, and hearings continue through November. Full day sessions are scheduled for 10, 12, 13, 19 and 20 November, giving the trial a steady rhythm as it moves toward its later stages. Each day adds to a record that is already extensive, with dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents examined in open court.
A trial that now turns on credibility and detail
The Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense faces a difficult task in the remaining hearings. Without the bank witness, it must rely on personal testimony and on challenges to the prosecution’s interpretation of the financial evidence. That puts a premium on the credibility of witnesses like Antero, and on their ability to explain spending that the prosecution presents as inconsistent with declared income.
For the prosecution, the day offered a mixed result. The defence’s decision to drop a witness removes a potential complication, but the testimony that was heard did not resolve the key questions about the 580,000 peso payment or the wider pattern of spending. The trial remains, in that sense, unresolved, with the most important questions still open and the most important evidence still to be weighed by the senators who will act as judges.
The political stakes are high. Sara Duterte is one of the most prominent figures in Philippine politics, and the outcome of the trial will shape her future and the balance of power in the country. The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, must decide not only on the legal questions but on the credibility of the case as a whole, and it must do so in public, under intense media and public scrutiny.
As the Sara Duterte impeachment trial defense continues its case, the focus will remain on the details. Receipts, dinners, shoes and bank letters may seem small on their own, but together they form the evidence on which the case will be decided. The defence has chosen its path for the days ahead, and the coming sessions will show whether that path is enough to answer the charges it faces.
Source: The Philippine Star