The marble corridors of the Philippine Senate echoed once again with the measured steps of lawyers and officials on a humid Tuesday morning. Inside the session hall converted into an impeachment court, day five of the trial against Vice President Sara Duterte unfolded with the quiet tension that comes when institutions test their own limits.
The focus remained on Article IV of the impeachment articles. It centres on alleged grave threats stemming from statements the vice president made during an online press briefing in November 2024. The defence had just completed its cross-examination of National Bureau of Investigation Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc when proceedings turned toward the next witness.
Zuleika Lopez, chief of staff to the Office of the Vice President, was due to testify for the prosecution panel. Her appearance carried weight. As someone close to the events in question, her account promised to add texture to claims that have already consumed weeks of public attention. The House prosecution panel had summoned both Lopez and NBI Director Melvin Matibag on 7 July, scheduling their testimonies for the week of 13 to 15 July.
Sara Duterte arrived at the Senate building that morning, though whether she would enter the courtroom stayed uncertain. Her schedule in Manila included several meetings. Defence spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa told reporters she would try to attend if time allowed, in order to show support for her staff.
Hindi pa siya sure. Dahil ang huling sabi niya sa akin when I was trying to confirm if she’s going to attend because she’s in Manila. But she has several meetings scheduled. Titignan lang daw niya kung makakahabol siya.
Poa delivered the update without drama. It reflected the practical realities that often shadow high-stakes political proceedings. Across the aisle, prosecution spokesperson Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. struck a note of preparedness when asked about the risks of calling Lopez.
Kung anuman ang risk, we’ve anticipated that.
These exchanges, brief as they were, revealed something larger. In a democracy, the rule of law demands that even the powerful face scrutiny. Yet the process must remain anchored in evidence rather than spectacle. When accountability mechanisms slip into tools for settling scores, public trust erodes. The Philippine Senate's role here, requiring a one-third vote to convict, places a heavy responsibility on its members to separate fact from faction.
