Vice President Sara Duterte cannot be forced to take the witness stand in her ongoing Senate impeachment proceedings due to constitutional guarantees protecting individuals from self-incrimination, lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison stated.
Sison raised the argument on the 23rd day of the trial in response to an announcement from the House prosecution panel that it was considering calling Duterte to testify.
Addressing the court on Tuesday, Sison pointed out fundamental legal barriers:
“There’s an innate problem in that kind of request.”
Sison anchored her argument on Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides explicit protection against compulsory self-incriminating testimony.
“Section 17, Article III of our 1987 Constitution put in that guarantee that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself or to be a witness or that there should not be testimonial compulsion from the accused herself.”
The defense lawyer firmly rejected any notion that Duterte’s absence from the Senate floor implies a lack of defense or an abandonment of the process, emphasizing that her legal team actively represents her interests.
“Until now, it is clear that the respondent is here through her counsel. If the respondent is not interested in this trial, she would not have even sent her lawyers to defend her in this case.”
Warning against attempts to bypass fundamental legal rights, Sison stressed:
“The preservation of liberties does not depend on motives… A suppression of liberty has the same effect whether the suppressor is a reformer or an outlaw.”
Sison noted that the defense team reserves its right to file a formal response should House prosecutors officially ask the Senate court to issue a subpoena for the Vice President.
The exchange followed statements from House prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan, who disclosed that prosecutors were evaluating calling Duterte as a hostile witness whose testimony could touch on all four impeachment articles.
Kapunan noted that the panel reserves the option to seek court intervention via a subpoena if necessary.
Meanwhile, the prosecution withdrew its remaining 15 witnesses for Article I—which involves alleged irregularities in Duterte’s confidential fund usage—stating that the evidence already submitted sufficiently supports the charge.