39

Sara Duterte impeachment witnesses have become the focus of renewed controversy after Vice President Sara Duterte’s spokesperson, Paolo Panelo, criticized Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s reminder on the proper treatment of witnesses. Panelo argued that the warning came too late, raising concerns that previous exchanges during the hearings may have discouraged other defense witnesses from testifying.

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s spokesperson Paolo Panelo has questioned the timing of Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s reminder to respect witnesses’ rights, saying the damage may have already been done following contentious exchanges during the impeachment proceedings.

Panelo made the remarks on November 12, 2026, after Escudero reminded senator-judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers to exercise restraint when questioning witnesses in the ongoing impeachment trial against Duterte.

The spokesperson argued that simply reminding members of the impeachment court to observe proper conduct would not be enough without immediate and consistent enforcement of the rules.

“The reminder is different from implementation,” Panelo said, according to a report by the Daily Tribune.

He also questioned some of the statements made by senator-judges during previous hearings, suggesting that certain remarks appeared to communicate legal positions to the public rather than elicit testimony from witnesses.

Escudero Reminds Senator-Judges to Respect Witness Rights

Escudero issued the reminder before the continuation of the impeachment proceedings, emphasizing that witnesses retain legal protections even when testifying under oath.

He stressed that an unsatisfactory answer does not automatically constitute contempt and cautioned members of the court against questioning methods that could intimidate witnesses.

Escudero also acknowledged that repeated answers such as “I do not know” and “I do not recall” could frustrate senator-judges. However, he said the court must evaluate testimony based on its evidentiary value rather than allowing frustration to influence the proceedings.

The presiding officer further acknowledged that his own patience had been wearing thin during previous hearings, saying the reminder applied to him as well.

He also agreed to have the reminder circulated in writing and included in the official transcript of the proceedings.

Defense Witnesses Faced Intense Questioning

The controversy followed several contentious exchanges involving witnesses presented by Duterte’s defense team.

Among them were Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin and City Accountant Vingelin Bajan, who faced questions concerning matters related to the Vice President’s alleged unexplained wealth and financial disclosures.

During the November 9 hearing, Adalin was questioned about an alleged all-expense-paid trip to China in 2025. His responses prompted questions from senator-judges regarding his recollection of the trip and the credibility of his testimony.

Bajan, meanwhile, faced questioning during the November 10 proceedings concerning her previous accounting work, financial records, and companies allegedly connected to Duterte.

Some senator-judges expressed frustration over the witnesses’ difficulty recalling specific details.

The exchanges intensified discussions about the balance between rigorous questioning and the obligation to protect witnesses from improper treatment.

What the Rules Say About Witness Protection

In his reminder, Escudero cited Section 3, Rule 132 of the Philippine Rules of Court, which outlines the rights and obligations of witnesses.

The provision protects witnesses from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions and harsh or insulting treatment during examination.

It also provides protections against certain questions that could expose witnesses to criminal penalties or unnecessarily damage their reputations, subject to exceptions under the rules.

However, these protections do not exempt witnesses from their obligation to testify truthfully and answer relevant questions.

The impeachment court must therefore balance the rights of witnesses with the responsibility of senator-judges to examine evidence and assess the credibility of testimonies presented before them.

Prosecution Also Raises Concerns Over Defense Witnesses

The controversy has also highlighted disagreements between the prosecution and defense over the credibility of witnesses.

House impeachment prosecutor Terry Ridon previously raised concerns about Adalin and Bajan remaining employed by the Davao City government under Mayor Sebastian Duterte, the Vice President’s brother.

Ridon suggested that their employment could create pressure or potential conflicts affecting their testimony.

These concerns remain allegations raised by the prosecution and have not, by themselves, established that either witness gave false testimony or was improperly influenced.

The defense, meanwhile, continues to present witnesses and evidence in response to the allegations against the Vice President.

Fairness and Credibility Remain Central to the Trial

Panelo’s criticism and Escudero’s reminder have placed renewed attention on the conduct of the impeachment proceedings.

While the defense has raised concerns about how its witnesses are being questioned, the prosecution maintains its responsibility to examine testimony and challenge evidence presented before the court.

Ultimately, the impeachment court faces the task of ensuring that witnesses are treated fairly while allowing both sides to present and scrutinize evidence.

As the proceedings continue, the handling of witnesses could remain an important issue in determining public confidence in the fairness and credibility of the impeachment trial.