Lawyer Sheila Sison emerged as a formidable voice for Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team as the Senate impeachment trial began on Monday, July 6, directly confronting the prosecution’s legal arguments and laying out the defense’s case for due process, fairness, and strict adherence to the Constitution.

Even before issuing the opening statements, Sison, the lead counsel for Duterte’s defense team, first opposed the prosecution’s request to arraign the Vice President, arguing that Duterte was already properly represented before the Senate impeachment court through counsel.

She said the Senate’s impeachment rules do not require Duterte’s personal appearance, noting that the Vice President had filed her answer to the Articles of Impeachment and was represented by her lawyers during the proceedings.

“Respondent accused is here, has attended through counsel,” Sison said.

READ: 

Sison also challenged the prosecution’s reliance on various Senate impeachment court rules, particularly Rules 7, 9, and 21, maintaining that none of the provisions required an arraignment or the reading of the 23-page Articles of Impeachment.

“Rule 7 does not support the request of the lead prosecutor that there is a need for the respondent to be arraigned today,” she said.

She added that Rule 9 allows a respondent to appear personally, through an agent, or through counsel.

“For all intents and purposes, respondent is present today through counsel,” Sison said.

The defense lawyer also questioned the need to read the entire Articles of Impeachment before the court, saying the rules did not require it and that doing so would be an unnecessary use of judicial time.

“There is also nothing in Rule 9 that requires the reading of a 23-page Articles of Impeachment, which will be a waste of judicial time,” she said.

But Sison’s role went beyond the procedural dispute.

In her opening statement, Sison presented the defense’s broader position: that the impeachment trial must not become a political exercise detached from constitutional safeguards.

She said the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, carries the responsibility of receiving and weighing evidence before deciding whether the accusations against Duterte warrant conviction or acquittal.

The prosecution is seeking to remove a Vice President elected by more than 32 million Filipinos, Sison said, stressing that the case carries consequences not only for Duterte but also for the electorate that voted for her.

“The prosecution now comes before this court to remove a Vice President chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate,” she said.

While acknowledging that public officials must be accountable, Sison argued that the same constitutional standards apply to the prosecutors and House members pursuing the impeachment case.

She said public office is a public trust and that the obligation to act with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, patriotism, and justice applies to all public officials, including those involved in the impeachment process.

Sison also cited the Supreme Court’s July 2025 ruling that declared the House impeachment proceedings against Duterte void from the beginning due to grave abuse of discretion.

She said the ruling served as a reminder that impeachment, while a constitutional mechanism for accountability, should not be used to advance partisan interests or political dominance.

“Justice includes accountability. Justice includes fairness. Without fairness, there is abuse,” Sison said.

The defense lawyer further argued that impeachment is not purely political, describing it as a legal, political, and constitutional mechanism governed by defined limits.

She said the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, while the House of Representatives has the authority only to initiate them.

Sison criticized the House Committee on Justice proceedings, which she described as a “mini-trial” that allegedly allowed evidence outside the impeachment complaints to be used in building a narrative against Duterte before the Senate trial.

She said the prosecution would attempt to link notices of disallowance, audit findings, certifications, and other documents to allegations involving the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds.

However, Sison maintained that the defense would challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of those materials and point to the documented approval process involving the Department of Budget and Management, the Office of the President, and other government offices.

At the center of her argument was the principle that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

“The burden of proof never shifts,” Sison said. “He who accuses must prove his allegations,” she added.

She stressed that the prosecution must present evidence that meets standards of admissibility, credibility, relevance, materiality, and competence.

Unless the prosecution meets that burden, Sison said, Duterte is not required to prove her innocence and remains entitled to acquittal.

Sison’s opening intervention signaled that Duterte’s defense team would not simply respond to the prosecution’s allegations but would challenge the legal and constitutional basis of the impeachment case at every stage of the trial. 

RELATED STORY: