22

By Henrylito D. Tacio

Last September 29, Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte appeared before the Senate impeachment court. It became one of the most closely watched moments of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Based on reporting from ABS-CBN, Inquirer, Rappler, Philippine News Agency, Manila Times, and reactions circulating on social media, the significance of his appearance extended beyond the factual testimony he delivered. It became a political, legal, and symbolic event.

Why the appearance mattered

Baste was not merely another witness. He is the vice president’s brother. He is the mayor of Davao City, where some of the questioned government contracts were awarded. He is a prominent political figure in the Duterte camp and a potential future national candidate.

His testimony centered on Davao City’s transactions with GenCorp Industries Inc., a company that became a focal point in the impeachment proceedings because Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio had declared an interest in it in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALNs).

The prosecution apparently viewed him as someone who could either validate or contradict key aspects of the case. That is why, even before he testified, prosecutors described some of his previous public statements as potentially important to their arguments.

The “hostile witness” designation

The most consequential development was that the Senate impeachment court declared Baste a hostile witness. Such description is apt for a trial witness called by a party whose testimony on direct examination turns out to be openly antagonistic, uncooperative, or contradictory to the legal position of the person who called them.

 The ruling came after the prosecution cited his public defense of his sister, his assertion that the impeachment was politically motivated and aimed at stopping VP Sara’s 2028 presidential ambitions, and his acknowledgment that he appeared because of a subpoena and would not have testified voluntarily.

From a media perspective, this designation immediately shifted coverage from the content of his testimony to the political dynamics surrounding it.

For critics of the Duterte camp, the ruling reinforced perceptions that he was an interested party rather than a neutral witness.

For Duterte supporters, the designation became proof that the proceedings were adversarial and politically charged.

As a result, social media conversations were often less focused on procurement records and more focused on whether he was being treated fairly by the court.

Testimony was defensive but carefully measured

One noticeable theme in media accounts was Baste’s attempt to distance himself from personal knowledge of VP’s business interests. He repeatedly maintained that he did not know his sister had an interest in GenCorp. Her name did not appear in documents submitted to the city government. Government procurement processes were followed.

He said that had he known of a conflict of interest, he would not have allowed the contracts to proceed. Political observers noted that this was a carefully calibrated position.

Rather than aggressively attacking the prosecution, he largely adhered to a narrative that protected both himself and his sister: There was no personal knowledge. There was no intent to conceal. Contracts followed normal procedures.

This approach limited opportunities for dramatic courtroom confrontations but also limited his ability to completely neutralize accusations surrounding the contracts.

Social media attention

An interesting aspect of the day was the extent to which social media discussed Baste Duterte’s image and demeanor rather than the legal details.

Multiple online discussions highlighted the following: his all-black attire, his relatively calm demeanor under questioning, comparisons to action-movie or “strongman” political imagery, and perceptions of confidence versus perceptions of defiance.

This reflects a broader reality of modern Philippine politics: visual symbolism often competes with policy and legal arguments for public attention. For supporters, the appearance projected toughness and loyalty. For critics, it symbolized resistance to accountability.

What it means for the Dutertes

The appearance also offered a glimpse of the Duterte family’s political strategy. Baste did not appear to separate himself from Sara. Instead, he reinforced key themes already promoted by the Duterte camp. The impeachment is politically motivated. The process is connected to future electoral contests. The family remains united despite sustained legal and political pressure.

This is significant because the Duterte political brand has long relied on family solidarity and loyalty. Any sign of division would have been politically damaging. His testimony largely avoided creating such a narrative.

Who “won” the day?

The answer depends on perspective. For the prosecution, they succeeded in compelling a high-profile Duterte family member to testify. They secured the court’s declaration of Baste as a hostile witness. They highlighted inconsistencies and questions surrounding the GenCorp issue.

For the defense and Duterte supporters, Baste did not produce any major revelation directly implicating Sara Duterte. He maintained that he had no knowledge of undisclosed business interests. He projected loyalty and composure under questioning.

Taken together, the appearance of Baste in the ongoing impeachment trial strengthened the narrative that the impeachment trial is not only a legal proceeding but also an early battleground for the country’s future political alignments, particularly with the 2028 presidential race already looming in public discourse.—###

Photos taken from social media