VP Sara Duterte's strategy

There are those who want to make a spectacle out of Vice President Sara Duterte’s absence from the House Committee on Justice hearings on her impeachment case. Critics have been quick to frame her non-attendance as cowardice, pointing to her earlier fiery remark about welcoming a “bloodbath” in the impeachment process. Others go further, insinuating that her absence is the equivalent of guilt.

But such conclusions may be premature --and perhaps even misplaced.

Duterte’s decision not to attend the House proceedings can just as reasonably be seen not as fear, but as a strategy. After all, she has the option not to attend those proceedings.

VP Sara, being a lawyer and a seasoned politician, can easily spot the writing on the wall. Many of the congressmen sitting in the committee are the very same individuals who previously signed or supported the impeachment complaint against her. She also observes the ocean of difference in the treatment of her impeachment complaint as compared to that of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Expecting impartiality in such a setting may be unrealistic. From the vice president’s perspective, the odds at the committee level are overwhelmingly stacked against her, regardless of the strength of any counterarguments or evidence her camp might present.

In this light, attending the hearings could be viewed as a futile exercise --one that consumes time and resources while prematurely exposing the defense’s arguments in a forum perceived to be less than neutral.

Her absence, therefore, may be less about avoidance and more about preserving legal and political capital for a venue where due process is more assured.

The same reasoning appears to apply to her legal team’s decision not to participate in the proceedings. Under House rules, lawyers are limited to advising their clients and are not allowed to directly participate, cross-examine witnesses, or freely engage in the process. If they want to ask questions, they will have to follow the house rules by just writing them down and giving them to the chairperson, who has the option of reading it or not. In effect the defense will neither be allowed to ask a series of questions nor make follow-up questions to trap the opposing witness.

Such limitations raise valid concerns about the balance and fairness of the proceedings.

In contrast, the Senate --should the impeachment process reach that stage-- is widely regarded as a more neutral ground. At least at that juncture both the congressmen who serve as prosecutors by that time and the defense will have equal footing.

Seen from this perspective, Duterte’s decision is not an act of retreat but a calculated move. It reflects recognition of political realities within the House and a preference to engage where the rules of engagement are more even.

Whether one agrees with her approach or not, it is important to distinguish between absence driven by fear and absence driven by strategy. In politics --as in law-- timing, venue, and positioning often matter just as much as the arguments themselves.

Sara’s “bloodbath” remark is referred to the full-blown trial in the Senate impeachment court, a neutral venue, should it reach that level.