During the resumption of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte on August 12, 2026, state auditor Xylene Mae del Campo clarified that payments made by Duterte's office were intended for acquiring information rather than rewarding individuals. This clarification emerged amid repeated questioning by defense counsel regarding whether the absence of untoward incidents could justify such payments. The trial, which had previously paused, continued with legal arguments centered around the interpretation of financial transactions related to Duterte's administration. The day began with heightened tensions as defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer faced off against senior prosecutor Lorna Kapunan. Ferrer, representing Duterte, was tasked with cross-examining del Campo, who presented audit findings concerning the Office of the Vice President. The courtroom atmosphere grew tense when Ferrer challenged Kapunan’s control over the cross-examination process, asserting her right to question the auditor freely. Kapunan, however, objected to Ferrer interrupting her responses, leading to a heated exchange between the two attorneys. As the proceedings unfolded, Ferrer’s demeanor fluctuated throughout the day. Initially, she exhibited a more assertive approach, raising her voice and using physical gestures to emphasize her points. However, after a brief recess, she appeared to adopt a calmer tone, suggesting a possible adjustment in strategy or response to internal feedback. Despite the visible shift in her conduct, the defense team maintained that Ferrer had no intent to show disrespect toward opposing counsel, witnesses, or the court itself. Defense spokesperson Michael Poa addressed concerns about Ferrer’s behavior, stating that each attorney has their own method of conducting cross-examinations. He emphasized that Ferrer’s performance was influenced by the nature of the questions and objections posed during the morning session. By the afternoon, the type of questions evolved, contributing to a more composed demeanor from Ferrer. The defense team opted not to intervene directly, allowing Ferrer to manage her approach independently. The issue of the sub judice rule, which prohibits public commentary on ongoing judicial matters, became relevant as former Representative Robert Ace Barter highlighted its necessity for all parties involved in the trial, including Duterte herself. His statement underscored the importance of maintaining impartiality and adherence to legal procedures throughout the impeachment process. This rule aims to prevent undue influence or bias from external factors, ensuring fair treatment for all participants. In response to claims that the Duterte camp might be issuing threats, the defense team categorically denied making any additional threats beyond what was necessary for legal argumentation. They emphasized that their statements were confined to the context of the trial and did not extend to personal or political intimidation. This clarification aimed to dispel any misconceptions about the nature of their legal strategies and interactions with other stakeholders. Throughout the day, the focus remained on dissecting the financial records and audit observations presented by del Campo. These documents detailed the expenditures made by Duterte’s office, particularly highlighting the rationale behind certain payments. As the trial progresses, further scrutiny of these financial aspects will likely continue, shaping the narrative and potential outcomes of the impeachment proceedings.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
PH![[Newsstand] The strongest argument for determining two-thirds impeachment vote](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=newsinfo.inquirer.net%2Ffiles%2F2024%2F04%2F679222-e1719934431377.jpeg&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
