By Pexcel John Bacon, Reporter
VICE-PRESIDENT Sara Duterte-Carpio’s defense team must provide substantive explanations for financial transactions questioned during her impeachment trial rather than rely primarily on procedural and evidentiary objections, a political analyst said.
“The challenge for the defense goes beyond simply disputing the prosecution’s claims,” Ederson DT. Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, told BusinessWorld in a Facebook Messenger chat.
“They have to provide credible explanations for the questions that have been raised. It is one thing to question the evidence. It is another to explain the circumstances behind it,” he added.
The impeachment trial is set to resume with the defense presenting its case after the prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence.
Prosecutors earlier dropped several impeachment articles, narrowing the case against Ms. Duterte.
Mr. Tapia said the next phase of the proceedings would give the Vice-President’s camp its first opportunity to present its own account of the allegations after months of testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution.
“The defense presentation is very important because, for the first time, the Vice-President’s camp will have the opportunity to offer its own account of the allegations,” he said.
He added that the defense would need to address not only senator-judges but also a public seeking answers from elected officials.
“The defense therefore has to speak not only to the senator-judges but also to a public that expects accountability from its officials,” he said.
Mr. Tapia identified the defense’s apparent reliance on procedural and evidentiary objections as a potential vulnerability, particularly because the remaining allegations center on financial transactions.
He cited the impeachment court’s decision to admit key financial records, including statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, bank records and corporate documents.
While the admission of the documents does not prove the allegations, he said, it requires the defense to respond to evidence that is now part of the official record.
“The prosecution’s forensic analysis has raised questions about substantial amounts of allegedly unexplained wealth,” Mr. Tapia said. “These are findings that remain contested, and the prosecution must still establish their accuracy and constitutional significance.”
He said the defense should present a coherent alternative explanation backed by financial records, credible witnesses and expert analysis if necessary.
“If the prosecution’s computations are inaccurate, the defense should be able to identify where the errors occurred,” he said.
“If the transactions have legitimate explanations, those explanations should be supported by evidence,” he added.
Mr. Tapia said the burden of proof remains with the prosecution and that Ms. Duterte is not required to prove her innocence.
However, he said there is a distinction between challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence and addressing the questions raised by it.
“A defense may succeed in challenging the sufficiency of evidence without necessarily resolving the questions that the evidence has raised,” he said. “Those are two different things.”
Mr. Tapia said the defense’s key challenge is not simply whether it can contest the allegations through legal arguments but whether it can offer explanations that withstand factual scrutiny.
“And that, I think, is where the defense faces its most important challenge,” he said. “It’s not simply whether it can contest the allegations legally, but whether it can provide answers that withstand factual scrutiny.”