THE PROSECUTION PUT ITS OWN WEAKNESSES ON TRIAL
Opinion | Rob Rances
The prosecution summoned Mayor Baste Duterte to strengthen its case against Sara. It also gave the public a closer look at its own preparation—and reasons to question it.
While prosecutors examined Baste’s authority over Davao City contracts, Escudero reminded them: “The witness is not the one on trial here.” He instructed them to connect their questions to the allegations against the Vice President.
Remembering whose guilt you are trying to establish should be basic preparation. Apparently, it required judicial assistance.
The doubts were already visible during the previous day’s firearms testimony. Zubiri said: “We’re looking for the bigger evidence.” Escudero questioned how convincingly that witness established ill-gotten wealth. These remarks concerned particular evidence, but they exposed a problem: a presentation can attract attention while failing to establish the point it promises.
The prosecution has presented documents and testimony. Claiming otherwise would be inaccurate. What remains contested is whether those materials establish the alleged wrongdoing and Sara’s responsibility. For politicians already celebrating her downfall, that distinction may be inconvenient. Wanting Sara removed is a political position. Proving the charges is the prosecution’s job. Applause cannot fill the gaps.
Baste’s appearance made those gaps more visible. A prominent family member facing questions creates a powerful public image. When the court has to ask where the examination is going, the Duterte camp’s claim of political demolition becomes easier to sell.
Declaring a witness hostile gives prosecutors more room to question him. It does not make their conclusions compulsory viewing instructions.
The political benefit of removing Sara is clear enough: conviction accompanied by disqualification could eliminate a leading contender for 2028. That warrants scrutiny of another possible incentive: could some interests also benefit from preventing a future administration from examining politically sensitive transactions? That possibility deserves investigation.
Accountability must follow the evidence through every implicated official, contractor, transaction, and beneficiary. It cannot stop wherever political convenience places the finish line.
The prosecution’s answer to suspicions of a demolition job must be a convincing case. Every exchange that leaves the connection unexplained gives those suspicions more room to grow.
The public can already see who benefits politically from Sara’s removal. The prosecution still has to persuade the court that the evidence warrants it. That part cannot be outsourced to anti-Duterte enthusiasm.
