The legal team of Vice President Sara Duterte has confirmed its commitment to “definitely participate” in a potential Senate impeachment trial, signaling a shift in strategy as the proceedings move toward the upper chamber.
Atty. Michael Poa, spokesperson for the Vice President’s impeachment defense team, stated in a radio interview that while they continue to challenge the legality of the House proceedings before the Supreme Court, they are preparing for a full-scale trial in the Senate.
Poa noted that the camp views the Senate process as the “proper forum” where the rules of a “real trial” will apply.
“As for the Senate, we will definitely participate—the defense team,” Poa confirmed.
Despite the team’s guaranteed participation, Poa clarified that the Vice President’s personal presence in the Senate would not be constant.
Her attendance will be determined by the necessity of specific trial incidents, drawing a comparison to the 2012 impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“The very presence of the Vice President, of course, will depend on what the incident is in that trial—if it is necessary for her to be there,” Poa explained. “She will not be present in all the proceedings.”
The defense team has previously justified Duterte’s absence from the House Committee on Justice hearings by arguing that the House panel had expanded its investigation into matters that belong to a full trial rather than a preliminary probable cause determination.
On April 29, the House Committee on Justice voted unanimously (53–0) to find probable cause in the consolidated impeachment complaints, which allege misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and grave threats against high-ranking officials.
The findings are scheduled for a plenary vote on May 4, where a one-third vote of the House members would officially transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
Duterte’s lawyers from the firm Fortun Narvasa & Salazar have criticized the House’s reliance on bank records and AMLC reports, maintaining that all of the Vice President’s assets were acquired through legitimate means.
They have also asked the Supreme Court to intervene, citing procedural lapses and violations of constitutional due process.