Credibility and optics in the impeachment

The ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has had its dull moments and interesting episodes, but they have all been learning moments. The credibility and optics of the lawyers, witnesses, senator-judges, live audiences, and documents are compelling and will impact the final judgment of the people, even if not that of some of the senator-judges.

Even if we cannot watch the entire live airing of the trial, multimedia replays, social media feeds, and commentaries are adequate to keep us abreast of the proceedings.

The credibility of the videos and documents or exhibits is well established, making it difficult for the defense lawyers to contest their authenticity, since most are original or certified true copies. The credibility of the prosecution witnesses has also been difficult to undermine, as most of them are ordinary employees who were simply doing their jobs. Assailing the witnesses’ competence and motivation had very limited effect on their credibility.

The credibility of the prosecution and defense lawyers is also in play, adding to the drama and the legal consequences. Admittedly, the defense lawyers are handicapped by the enormity of the charges and evidence presented by the prosecution against VP Duterte. It was difficult to turn any defense into an offensive move. It did not help that some of the defense lawyers selectively nitpicked on pieces of evidence to demonstrate legal or trial virtuosity without making an important point. The prosecution lawyers had a better strategy and plan of action, adding credibility to the documentary evidence.

The defense’s cross-examinations on the disbursement and liquidation of VP Sara’s confidential and intelligence funds for her office and as DepEd secretary were an exercise in futility. It is stretching the limits of the Filipino people’s credibility to claim that hundreds of millions of pesos were distributed in a few days to thousands of people all over the Philippines. It is also unbelievable that the hundreds of fictitious names on the acknowledgment receipts represented real people who received the money.

Cross-examination may be considered a low-level defensive action, with the heavy firepower reserved for when it is their turn to present the defense. So far, they have not made a dent in the credibility of the prosecution lawyers, documents, and witnesses.

The “optics” in the four weeks of the impeachment trial have also not favored the defense team. Given their inherent disadvantage due to the charges and evidence, they have limited options to neutralize the trial scenarios. The personalities, demeanors, and stances of the defense lawyers, which were combative, did not appeal to viewers and the public.

The young, overconfident defense lawyers against the seasoned, calm, experienced prosecution lawyers was not a good setup. The young female defense lawyers were also no match for the motherly, well-prepared women lawyers of the prosecution. Belaboring minor issues in the COA audit reports only added to the incredibility of the disbursement and liquidation of hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential and intelligence funds. Then, the very biased questions and manifestations of the pro-Duterte senator-judges added to the negative public perception of the defense team.

The final votes for the conviction or acquittal of VP Duterte and her impeachment depend more on the political loyalties of the senator-judges than on the credibility of the witnesses and evidence. But the impeachment trial will still be worth the effort and expense in time, money, and attention for the government, the country, and the people. It should reset our moral and ethical compass and put our government in the right direction, especially in the coming 2028 election.