Manila: Vice President Sara Duterte's improved satisfaction rating cannot halt or weaken her impeachment trial because constitutional accountability is decided on evidence, not popularity, the House prosecution panel said Friday.
According to Philippines News Agency, House prosecution legal spokesperson and private prosecutor Jay Tolosa Jr. emphasized that public approval does not place any impeachable official beyond scrutiny for alleged violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Tolosa asserted, "This is not a popularity contest. It's a constitutional accountability mechanism."
The Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey discussed during the briefing was conducted from June 20 to 29, before Duterte's Senate trial began, and measured satisfaction with her performance rather than public judgment on the impeachment evidence. It showed Duterte posting a 'good' net satisfaction rating of +31 in June, up from +29 in March.
The House prosecution maintained that survey respondents may approve of particular services delivered by the Vice President while still supporting a constitutional inquiry into separate allegations concerning threats, confidential funds, and unexplained wealth. Former Chief Justice Renato Corona was, likewise, subjected to a Senate trial despite the political support he retained, with the impeachment court ultimately convicting him in 2012 for failing to properly disclose assets in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
Tolosa pointed out the relevance of the Corona impeachment trial as a reminder of the constitutional process. He added that the Constitution empowers the Senate to determine whether an impeachable official committed culpable violations, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust, "without making popularity a defense against accountability."
House prosecution spokesperson and impeachment adviser Ace Barbers remarked that allowing ratings to determine whether a trial should continue would practically give popular officials immunity from constitutional scrutiny. Barbers emphasized the importance of evidence over popularity in impeachment proceedings.
Barbers also noted the difficulty in drawing conclusions from the survey without knowing the exact questions asked and what respondents were evaluating. He urged the public to closely follow the presentation of evidence before the Senate impeachment court to form their own conclusions or opinions on the impeachment issue.
Barbers acknowledged that impeachment proceedings can be difficult for the public to understand due to their legal and constitutional nature but assured that the evidence presented in court would allow Filipinos to make an informed judgment.
Meanwhile, the prosecution's decision to withdraw witnesses from Article IV was reached after a careful review of the evidence and formally explained out of respect for the Senate Impeachment Court, rather than as a retreat from a weak case. Tolosa maintained that the panel owed both the senator-judges and the Filipino people a clear explanation after changing the witness lineup contained in its pretrial brief.
The prosecution dropped several proposed witnesses after concluding that their accounts would repeat matters already established through authenticated videos, National Bureau of Investigation testimony, and evidence on the circumstances surrounding Duterte's recorded statements.
The Senate impeachment court later instructed both sides that they did not need to argue extensively over witness withdrawals, while allowing the prosecution to streamline Article IV before presenting its final witness. Tolosa stressed that removing witnesses was not an arbitrary change made for convenience but the result of assessing whether their proposed testimony would still contribute anything material to the case.
