Sara Duterte Skips Impeachment Trial Opening, Cites Legal Strategy
Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte skipped the opening day of her impeachment trial, opting to appear through her lawyers. She cited constitutional rights and legal strategy, dismissing President Marcos's view that she should attend personally.
MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte skipped the opening day of her impeachment trial before the Senate on Monday, opting to appear through her lawyers as she maintained that personally taking the witness stand is “a matter of legal strategy and constitutional rights.” In a statement issued as the Senate sat as an impeachment court, Duterte also brushed aside President Marcos’ view that she should personally attend the proceedings. “The opinion of a President in an impeachment proceeding is of no importance. Impeachment proceedings must be guided by the Constitution and due process,” Duterte said. Marcos, speaking during his recent visit to Canada, had said it would be “much easier” if the Vice President personally appeared before the impeachment court to answer the accusations against her, while acknowledging that the decision ultimately rests on her and her lawyers. “If it [were] me being accused, I would almost insist [on] the advice of lawyers. If they advise me not to appear, I would [still] insist on appearing, because if I could answer the questions, then it’s better if I do it myself,” he said. Duterte stressed that respondents in impeachment cases have the right to be represented by counsel and that the burden remains on the prosecution to prove its case. “Choosing to appear through counsel rather than testify personally does not diminish accountability or imply a lack of transparency. The integrity of an impeachment trial depends on adherence to the rule of law—not on whether the respondent personally takes the stand,” she said. Defense lawyer Michael Poa said Duterte’s absence was consistent with the Senate’s impeachment rules. “Our Vice President has already issued a statement saying she has chosen to appear by counsel today in accordance with the impeachment rules,” Poa told reporters before the proceedings. He added that while Duterte would not attend Monday’s session, her appearance in future hearings would depend on how the trial unfolds. “If necessary, why not? But that will depend on how the proceedings go, and we will advise her accordingly,” he said in a briefing. Duterte’s absence came despite her statement in May 2025 that she wanted the impeachment trial to proceed because she wanted a “bloodbath,” saying then that her legal team had been preparing at “full throttle.” Poa said there was no inconsistency, noting that the defense had been preparing for more than a year and that Duterte remained ready to face the case. Members of the House prosecution panel criticized Duterte’s decision to stay away from the opening session. Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima said the Vice President’s absence “doesn’t look right” and could be viewed as disrespectful to both the impeachment process and the Senate impeachment court. “I hope she changes her mind because it’s different if she’s seen there, attending, appearing and being seen interested in her cause, which is of course, acquittal,” De Lima said. Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, another impeachment prosecutor, said the panel would have preferred Duterte to confront the allegations personally “in respect to the order of the Senate impeachment court.” Political analyst Anthony Lawrence Borja of De La Salle University said skipping the proceedings could undermine Duterte’s image as a defiant political figure, although it could also form part of a strategy to delegitimize the process by portraying it as a “kangaroo court.” “We should ask if she is actually fighting to win the impeachment or will she just try to delegitimize the entire process,” he added. Meanwhile, Malacañang said Marcos was not closely monitoring the opening day of the trial. “The President has much more important work to do and will not simply sit down and watch the impeachment trial,” Palace press officer Claire Castro said. Also on Monday, Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte, the Vice President’s brother, expressed hope that the proceedings would be conducted fairly and allow “the truth to emerge from the mountain of accusations, speculation, political narratives, and noise.” “The Filipino people deserve facts, not rumors. Evidence, not innuendo. Truth, not propaganda,” Representative Duterte said. —WITH REPORTS FROM DEXTER CABALZA, AND GABRIEL PABICO LALU
多角的分析
副大統領の弾劾裁判という政治的不安定要因は、国内投資家のセンチメントに一時的な悪影響を与える可能性がある。特に、裁判の長期化や結果によっては、経済政策の不確実性が増し、外国からの直接投資（FDI）にも慎重な姿勢が見られるかもしれない。しかし、フィリピン経済はBPO産業や海外からの送金に支えられており、構造的な強靭性も持つため、短期的な影響に留まる可能性が高い。
投資家にとって、政治的リスクは常に監視すべき要素である。副大統領の不在は、裁判の進行における透明性への懸念を生じさせ、将来的な政治的権力闘争の可能性を示唆する。これは、特に短期的な投資判断において、リスク回避的な行動を促す可能性がある。しかし、長期的な視点では、フィリピンの成長ポテンシャルやASEAN地域における戦略的位置づけを考慮し、慎重なポートフォリオ再構築が求められるだろう。
副大統領の欠席は、国民の間で「公正さ」や「説明責任」に対する疑問を投げかける可能性がある。特に、弾劾手続きが公正に行われているのか、あるいは政治的な駆け引きに過ぎないのかという議論がSNSなどを通じて広がるだろう。また、彼女の支持者と反対派の間で分断が深まることも予想される。これにより、市民社会の政治への関与のあり方や、情報リテラシーの重要性が再認識される。
一般市民、特にマルコス大統領の支持者からは、副大統領の出廷を求める声があるかもしれない。彼らは、税金で支えられる公職にある者が、疑惑に対して直接説明責任を果たすべきだと考えるだろう。一方で、副大統領の支持者は、彼女の法的権利を尊重し、検察側の立証責任を強調するだろう。この裁判の行方は、国民の政治への信頼感に影響を与え、今後の選挙における投票行動にも影響を及ぼす可能性がある。
背景・歴史的文脈
フィリピンにおける弾劾手続きは、大統領や副大統領などの高官に対する政治的な責任追及の手段として憲法に定められている。過去には、ジョセフ・エストラーダ元大統領やレナート・コロナ元最高裁判所長官などが弾劾手続きの対象となった。これらの事例は、フィリピンの政治がしばしば激しい権力闘争の場となることを示唆しており、弾劾裁判はしばしば政治的な駆け引きの側面を持つ。ドゥテルテ副大統領は、前大統領ロドリゴ・ドゥテルテ氏の娘であり、現政権とは異なる政治勢力との関係も指摘されており、今回の弾劾裁判は、フィリピンの政治勢力間の力学を反映していると考えられる。
原文ソース
Inquirer NewsInfo