*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
Imagine a family watching an impeachment hearing over lunch.
One person follows the questions about government contracts. Another watches
the witness’s expressions. Someone scrolling on a phone suddenly looks up.
“Si Baste pala ’yan. Ngayon ko lang siya napakinggan nang
ganyan.”
By evening, they may have forgotten the documents discussed.
But they remember the man answering the questions.
“Matapang,” says one.
“Hindi naman malinaw ang sagot,” replies another.
A third remarks, “Gusto kong marinig pa ang sasabihin niya.”
This imagined conversation captures the complication of a
televised impeachment trial. Inside the chamber, lawyers examine testimony.
Outside it, viewers form impressions of someone who might eventually ask for
their votes.
The prosecution calls a witness. The public may encounter
a potential candidate.
An impeachment trial must determine accountability. Yet
every appearance before the cameras also carries political consequences. Sa
isang bansang malakas ang impluwensiya ng personalidad, apelyido, at social
media, ang witness stand ay maaaring maging entablado para sa isang halalang
hindi pa nagsisimula.
That is the strategic risk surrounding Davao City Mayor
Sebastian “Baste” Duterte’s appearance in the impeachment trial of his sister,
Vice President Sara Duterte.
On September 29, 2026, the Senate impeachment court declared
Baste a hostile witness, permitting the prosecution to ask leading questions.
His examination concerned Davao City contracts involving a company declared as
a business interest of the Vice President. The declaration was a procedural
ruling, not a finding of guilt.
The appearance served an evidentiary purpose. At the same time, it placed him before a national audience that could observe his composure, voice, and manner of responding under pressure.
Sa aking pagsusuri, dito maaaring magkaroon ng political
miscalculation. The prosecution sought information from a mayor. It also gave
that mayor an opportunity to become more familiar to voters beyond his city.
Hindi na lamang apelyidong Duterte ang kanilang nakikita.
May mukha, boses, at personalidad na silang maaaring husgahan.
Visibility does not automatically produce popularity.
Critics may find a witness evasive while supporters consider him courageous.
Undecided viewers may become curious without becoming convinced. Reliable
polling would be needed to establish whether Baste actually gained electoral
support.
But recognition is itself politically useful. Before voters
can consider someone for national office, they usually need some impression of
who that person is. A widely watched hearing can help supply that
impression—even when the appearance was intended to expose weaknesses.
This opportunity extends to other participants. Prosecutors,
defense lawyers, and prominent personalities can acquire recognition through
repeated appearances and memorable exchanges. Ang isang argumentong mahusay
ihatid ay maaaring maging viral clip. Ang isang pangalang dating hindi kilala
ay maaaring maging pamilyar sa mga botante.
That exposure could later benefit a senatorial,
congressional, or local candidacy. It does not prove that particular lawyers
are using the trial to campaign for 2028. It does mean that the podium offers
political rewards alongside professional responsibilities.
The risk is that participants begin measuring success
through public attention while the audience loses sight of the evidence.
For Sara Duterte, the proceedings unfold before a divided
public. May mga naniniwalang kailangan siyang panagutin. May iba namang
naniniwalang siya ay inuusig upang hadlangan ang kanyang political future.
Each side can interpret the same exchange differently.
Necessary scrutiny becomes harassment in one account. An unanswered question
becomes resistance in another. Kaya kahit matapos ang paglilitis, maaaring
manatili ang mga political impression na nabuo habang pinapanood ito.
Baste may also have recognized the opportunity within that
division.
His earlier boxing controversy involving General Nicolas
Torre III offers a revealing comparison. Reports state that Baste initially
challenged Torre to a fistfight, which Torre accepted as a charity boxing
match. Baste did not attend the scheduled event on July 27, 2025, citing prior
commitments. These circumstances establish what happened, but they do not
establish his private political calculation.
Nevertheless, the two platforms offered different risks.
Sa aking interpretasyon, the boxing ring could have reduced
the confrontation to a spectacle in which Baste risked ridicule and Torre could
receive favorable publicity. The witness stand offered a more consequential
setting: an appearance as a mayor, a brother, and a political figure responding
to institutional pressure.
Sa ring, maaaring ang maalala ay kung sino ang natalo o
napahiya. Sa hearing, maaaring ang maalala ay kung sino ang kalmado, matatag, o
mahusay magsalita.
This comparison does not prove that Baste avoided one stage
and embraced the other for electoral reasons. It explains why someone attentive
to political image might perceive greater value in the second.
His attendance was compelled by subpoena. But being required
to appear does not prevent a witness from using the opportunity effectively.
Hindi niya pinili ang pagkakataong humarap, ngunit maaari niyang piliin kung
paano siya haharap.
That makes the prosecution’s preparation crucial.
What relevant facts did it need Baste to establish? Which
questions required his personal knowledge? Could particular procurement details
have been explained more directly by officials who processed, evaluated,
approved, or signed the transactions?
Kung may opisyal na may firsthand knowledge sa mga dokumento
at proseso, mahalagang marinig ang kanyang paliwanag. Such testimony may
clarify details that a political principal does not personally handle.
Delegation, however, does not automatically establish that
the mayor has no relevant knowledge or responsibility. Witness selection must
follow the facts each person can prove. The strongest criticism therefore
concerns the value of the examination, rather than the publicity alone.
Did calling Baste materially strengthen the evidentiary
case enough to justify the political opening it created?
Dito nagkakaiba ang legal perspective at political judgment.
A lawyer considers what testimony can establish. A political strategist
considers what the encounter might produce in public perception.
Both effects can occur together. A witness may give an
unfavorable answer and still gain sympathy. He may appear confident while
failing to address an important allegation. Kaya ang magandang tindig ay hindi
kapalit ng malinaw na sagot, at ang matinding pagtatanong ay hindi katumbas ng
patunay.
The prosecution controls its questions. It cannot control
every caption, edited clip, and interpretation that follows.
Ang sagot na mahina sa pananaw ng abogado ay maaaring
ipalabas bilang matapang ng isang supporter. A difficult exchange may become
material for a persecution narrative. Once circulated without context, the
moment can acquire a political meaning far removed from its evidentiary value.
This is the possible boomerang: an appearance intended to
scrutinize the Duterte family may also help that family promote another
political figure.
If the questioning is fair, focused, and informative, it can
strengthen public confidence. If it appears excessive while producing little
clarity, it can generate resentment. Maaaring umabot ang political cost sa
administration allies kapag iniuugnay sila ng manonood sa prosecution.
The prosecution and the administration are institutionally
distinct. Public perception, however, does not always preserve that
distinction.
We cannot know whether the prosecution overlooked these
consequences or considered them necessary. Its internal deliberations are not
available to us. What we can examine is the result: did the testimony clarify
the transactions, responsibilities, and allegations at issue?
Iyan din ang pamantayang dapat ilapat sa defense. Claims of
persecution cannot substitute for answers. Confidence cannot substitute for
proof. Neither side advances accountability by treating applause and online
engagement as evidence of success.
An impeachment court must hear relevant testimony even when
a witness might benefit politically. Avoiding an important witness because he
could become popular would compromise that duty. But calling him requires
disciplined questioning that makes his relevance clear.
Kung mahalagang ebidensiya ang nakuha, maipagtatanggol ang
desisyon kahit lumawak ang pagkakakilala kay Baste. If little was clarified
while favorable political content multiplied, the strategic concern becomes
harder to dismiss.
As 2028 approaches, appearances like this deserve careful
assessment. Political identities develop before formal campaigns. They take
shape when audiences begin attaching a voice, personality, and perceived
capacity to a familiar name.
Sa loob ng chamber, ang tanong ay kung ano ang napatunayan.
Sa labas nito, maaaring ang tanong ay kung sino ang puwedeng pagkatiwalaan.
The prosecution’s decision should ultimately be judged by
the evidence it secured, with a clear understanding of the political
opportunity it created.
Kapag ang pinakamatibay na naaalala ng publiko ay ang
testigo, at hindi ang katotohanang nilinaw ng kanyang testimonya, maaaring ang
pinakamalaking nakinabang ay ang taong ipinatawag.
Dear Reader,
I invite you to explore my complete collection of published books now available on Amazon. Whether you are seeking in-depth analysis, strategic insights, or engaging narratives, my catalog covers a range of essential topics designed to inform, inspire, and provoke thoughtful discussion.
You can browse all my current titles, read excerpts, and order your copies directly through my official Amazon Author Page:
Click this Image to View:
Warm regards,
*About the author:
