Sara Duterte Could Take the Witness Stand in Her Own Impeachment Trial

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte could soon face one of the most unusual moments of her impeachment trial: being called to testify as a witness in her own case.

The House prosecution panel is considering asking the Senate impeachment court to subpoena Duterte after prosecutors decided to drop the remaining 15 witnesses they had originally planned to present for the first article of impeachment involving alleged misuse of confidential funds.

The development unfolded during the 23rd day of Duterte's impeachment trial on September 8, 2026, when private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said the prosecution would instead seek to present the Vice President herself.

Prosecutors say Duterte herself is the key

Kapunan told the impeachment court that the evidence presented so far points back to one person—the Vice President.

The prosecution had originally identified 27 witnesses for Article 1. By September 8, however, 12 witnesses had already been presented or their testimony stipulated, including officials and personnel connected with the Office of the Vice President, military officials, state auditors and a Philippine Statistics Authority official.

Rather than call the remaining 15 witnesses, prosecutors said the testimony and evidence already presented had established what they described as a clear pattern.

Kapunan said the prosecution would ask the Senate impeachment court to issue a subpoena for Duterte at the appropriate time.

But that does not mean Duterte has already been ordered to testify.

The prosecution has yet to formally file the motion seeking the subpoena.

Defense immediately invokes Duterte's constitutional rights

Duterte's defense team quickly challenged the idea.

Lead defense counsel Shiela Sison argued that the Vice President cannot be compelled to testify against herself, citing Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself.

Sison described the protection as a fundamental constitutional right and said the defense would submit a formal comment if prosecutors eventually file a motion seeking a subpoena.

That creates a potentially complicated legal question for the impeachment court.

The prosecution may want Duterte personally to answer allegations against her.

The defense, meanwhile, argues that constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination cannot simply be set aside because the proceeding is an impeachment trial.

Prosecutors acknowledge the constitutional issue

House prosecution lead counsel Gerville Luistro also acknowledged that the matter is not yet settled.

Luistro said the prosecution had not formally filed its motion and suggested that the decision would ultimately involve Duterte and her defense team.

At the same time, she defended the prosecution's desire to hear directly from the Vice President, arguing that the Filipino public is entitled to hear her response to the allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.

That position sets up a significant confrontation between two principles:

the public's interest in transparency and accountability, and Duterte's constitutional protection against being compelled to incriminate herself.

The prosecution had already considered Duterte as a witness

The possibility of Duterte taking the stand is not entirely new.

Back in July, the House prosecution had already signaled that it could seek to call her as a hostile witness, particularly in connection with the fourth impeachment article involving alleged grave threats and acts of sedition.

The House itself formally announced on July 7 that prosecutors were reserving the right to call Duterte during their presentation of evidence on that article.

Prosecutors had also previously said they were prepared to cross-examine Duterte if she chose to testify.

But the latest development is different.

This time, the proposed testimony concerns Article 1 and the alleged misuse of confidential funds, rather than solely the allegations involving threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other officials.

Why prosecutors dropped 15 witnesses

The decision to abandon the remaining witnesses appears to be part of a broader effort to streamline the prosecution's presentation.

The original plan for Article 1 involved 27 witnesses and thousands of pieces of documentary evidence.

After presenting 12 witnesses or stipulated testimony, prosecutors concluded that calling the remaining 15 would not be necessary, according to reports from the trial.

Instead, they are now looking toward Duterte herself.

That could dramatically change the dynamics of the impeachment proceedings if the Senate allows the prosecution to compel her appearance.

The confidential-funds allegations remain central

Article 1 deals with allegations involving the use of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education during Duterte's tenure as education secretary.

The prosecution has presented testimony and documents intended to establish its allegations.

The latest move suggests prosecutors believe they have already established enough of the evidentiary foundation to make Duterte's own response potentially more significant than testimony from another group of witnesses.

But prosecutors still have to convince the impeachment court to allow their proposed next step.

Prosecutors also seek Duterte's response on bank records

The September 8 proceedings also brought another potentially significant issue into focus.

For Article 2, which concerns allegations of unexplained wealth and false Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, prosecutor Chel Diokno asked Duterte to confirm the authenticity and ownership of bank records that prosecutors intend to present.

The prosecution said it wants Duterte to acknowledge whether the records submitted by banks are genuine and whether the accounts belong to her, either individually or jointly with family members.

The defense was given 15 days to comment on the request.

That means Duterte's defense could soon be confronting questions about both the prosecution's proposed witness strategy and documentary evidence involving alleged financial irregularities.

The timing is especially significant

The proposed subpoena comes at a politically and legally tense moment for Duterte.

She is already facing an ongoing Senate impeachment trial while also dealing with a separate criminal case involving three counts of grave threats.

A Philippine trial court issued an arrest warrant for Duterte on September 4 over allegations stemming from her November 2024 remarks concerning President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez. Duterte denied making threats and later posted bail.

The alleged threats are also part of the impeachment case.

That means the Vice President is now confronting multiple proceedings in which statements she has made publicly have become central to legal and political disputes.

What happens if prosecutors actually subpoena her?

The next step is not automatic.

The prosecution still has to formally request the subpoena, and the impeachment court would have to rule on the matter.

If a subpoena is issued, Duterte's defense could challenge it based on her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

That could force the Senate impeachment court to address a question with major implications for the trial:

Can an impeachment respondent be compelled to testify when her own testimony could potentially expose her to adverse consequences?

The answer could shape not only Duterte's case but also future impeachment proceedings in the Philippines.

A trial now entering a critical phase

The House prosecution originally prepared a much larger witness list for the trial. In June, prosecutors said their potential witness list had expanded to 57 people, reflecting their effort to ensure that evidence could be presented under the Senate's trial rules.

But the strategy has evolved as the proceedings progressed.

Witnesses have been dropped when prosecutors determined their testimony was unnecessary, while other evidence has taken center stage.

Now, the prosecution appears willing to make the respondent herself the focus.

Will Sara Duterte take the stand?

For now, Sara Duterte has not been ordered to testify as a prosecution witness.

The House prosecution is considering a subpoena, but no formal motion has yet been filed based on the September 8 proceedings.

The defense has already signaled that it will invoke Duterte's constitutional rights if prosecutors pursue the move.

That leaves the Senate impeachment court facing a potentially explosive legal question.

Will Duterte be compelled to answer the allegations herself—or will her constitutional protection against self-incrimination prevent the prosecution from putting her on the witness stand?

The answer could become one of the defining battles of the impeachment trial.

WWC ONE MEDIA J.M.D