[OPINION] Acquitted before the evidence

Vice President Sara Duterte deserves due process, not blind absolution. A public willing to follow evidence has kept its democratic nerve. Before the Senate finishes hearing the case, some Filipinos have already acquitted Vice President Sara Duterte. No amount of testimony, audit finding, or receipt seems able to disturb their verdict. Political faith has closed the record. One need not look far; just scroll through your newsfeed in your socials and you will undoubtedly find one or 10 spurious comments. A warning from German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer helps explain this refusal. In a 1942 essay later published as “After Ten Years,” he examined the loss of personal judgment under concentrated power. He wrote before his arrest by the Gestapo in April 1943. His use of “stupidity” concerned neither intelligence nor schooling. He described a moral surrender in which borrowed beliefs displace personal responsibility. The pattern is familiar. Questions about public funds draw accusations of persecution. Audit reports trigger attacks on motives rather than answers on substance. Loyalty turns a demand for records into an insult. The impeachment trial now tests whether Filipinos own their judgment. The House prosecution accuses Duterte of misusing and irregularly liquidating P612.5 million in confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education. The amount includes P125 million released and spent over 11 days in December 2022. The paper trail demands scrutiny. The prosecution says liquidation papers carried questionable names and signatures, while Philippine Statistics Authority records failed to verify several listed recipients. The Commission on Audit also affirmed a notice of disallowance covering P73 million from the 2022 confidential funds. Duterte’s defense rejects the accusations. Her lawyers argue no competent tribunal has issued a final finding of misuse, malversation, graft, or plunder. They also challenge the impeachment process on constitutional and procedural grounds. Due process vs rigged judgment Fairness requires hearing both sides. An accusation is not a verdict. Yet fairness never requires citizens to shut their eyes while witnesses testify and records surface. Due process protects the respondent from a rigged judgment. Due process does not protect any public official from hard questions. Blind loyalty reverses this order. Evidence is heard only after the preferred leader has been cleared. Every receipt becomes persecution. Every audit finding becomes a Marcos plot. Every demand for explanation becomes an attack on Davao or the Duterte family. Such loyalty cheapens leadership. A great leader should survive scrutiny. Receipts need names. Disbursements need a lawful purpose. Audit findings need records, not applause. Greatness answers the public. The flood-control probe shows the same civic danger. In January, the Department of Justice said 14 of 421 projects initially flagged as possible ghost projects had been confirmed as nonexistent. Cases involving two had reached the Sandiganbayan, while the remaining 12 stayed under preliminary investigation. Separately, the Commission on Audit filed four fraud audit reports covering more than P325 million in Bulacan projects, citing ghost work, unauthorized relocations, and questionable completion claims. Those findings do not prove every accusation against every official. Courts must determine liability. Still, serious records demand serious answers. Flooded communities gain nothing when partisans dismiss missing infrastructure as political noise. Selective outrage is not accountability. A Duterte supporter who condemns anomalous projects under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. should apply the same standard to confidential funds under Duterte. A Marcos supporter should demand equal scrutiny of allies linked to flood contracts. Evidence should set the standard, not surnames, regions, or party colors. Yet public opinion offers reason for hope. An OCTA Research survey conducted from April 20 to 24 among 1,200 adults found 74% wanted the impeachment trial to proceed, up from 69% in March. Another OCTA survey, conducted from July 4 to 11, found 71% wanted senator-judges guided by law and evidence, not politics. The public still wants the full record examined. Bills, transport, work, brownouts, and scandals drain attention. Even so, most respondents chose process over political shortcuts. They want the case heard and the evidence weighed. Freedom begins with one hard question: Which verified fact would change your mind? If the answer is none, your position is no longer judgment. Your position is obedience. Then do the work. Read the articles of impeachment. Follow the testimony. Compare each prosecution claim with the defense answer. Demand original records. Correct allies when evidence proves them wrong. Refuse edited clips designed to trigger anger before thought. Rose-colored glasses promise comfort. In politics, they block evidence until affection becomes captivity. Those glasses are opaque prison cells. The door opens when citizens reclaim the duty to judge leaders by evidence, not inherited devotion. This is now our democratic opening. Duterte deserves due process, not blind absolution. Filipinos deserve answers, not slogans. A public willing to follow evidence has kept its democratic nerve. Our task is to strengthen such courage. – Rappler.com Rico V. Domingo is past president of the Philippine Bar Association and founding chairman of the Movement Against Disinformation. How does this make you feel? Loading