Kapunan Challenges VP: Refusal to Testify Inconsistent with Innocence

Cover image: Screengrab from OneNewsPh Youtube

MANILA — Private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan has challenged Vice President Sara Duterte to take the witness stand in her Senate impeachment trial, asserting that refusing to testify directly contradicts any public claims of innocence.

Appearing on One News PH’s The Big Story on 30 July 2026, Kapunan revealed during an interview with broadcast journalist Ces Drilon that she will recommend to the House prosecution panel that Duterte be formally summoned as a witness in the ongoing trial.

On Calling the Vice President to the Stand

The topic arose when Drilon asked Kapunan: "Will you ever call the VP to the stand? Can you as the prosecution?"

Kapunan acknowledged the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, but argued that avoiding the stand altogether does not align with a claim of innocence.

"Can we? Yes, as prosecution, yes we can. But can a person testify against oneself? That’s what she’s going to say, she cannot testify. But you know, not to testify at all is not consistent with a claim of innocence," Kapunan said.

Addressing the Vice President's public statements, Kapunan added that holding media briefings outside the trial is not how an accused person typically behaves.

"If you're charged with a crime... press conference, that is not consistent with a claim of innocence. I mean, it's not the ordinary reaction of a person who claims innocence. You want to go after, you want to clear your name," Kapunan noted.

Directly addressing Duterte on air, Kapunan issued a challenge to testify:

"Testify. Bring it on, Madam Vice President, bring it on."

On Recommending a Subpoena and Trimming Witnesses

Drilon followed up by asking: "So you will recommend that she be summoned or listed as a witness?"

Kapunan confirmed that the private prosecution panel will submit that recommendation to the public prosecutors heading the case.

"We will recommend that she be summoned or listed as a witness... because we bring into [the panel] our years of experience," Kapunan stated.

When Drilon brought up the pace of the proceedings and the length of the trial, Kapunan explained that the prosecution panel is actively reducing the number of witnesses to avoid unnecessary delays.

"From our first presentation, we’ve shortened from 12 to three... confidential funds, there's a conscious effort now to take a second look at our number of witnesses... [from 32 down to] 10 or 12," Kapunan said.

On Senator Pia Cayetano's Online Video and Motions for Inhibition

Drilon brought up Senator Pia Cayetano posting a spliced video online depicting prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno as being on a "fishing expedition," asking why the prosecution remained silent in court rather than rising to address it: "How come there was silence when the impeachment trial resumed from the prosecution or from the colleagues?"

Kapunan explained that the prosecution felt the impeachment court floor was not the appropriate venue to address the social media post.

"First of all, there was no silence. In fact, we were so appalled. But the proper venue really is the ethics committee, and some people have already filed in the ethics committee," Kapunan replied.

When Drilon asked if she would personally move to disqualify or ask a judge to step aside in a regular court setting, Kapunan confirmed that she would, but explained why filing a formal motion for inhibition against a senator-judge is strategically difficult in an impeachment setting.

"Personally, if this were a regular courtroom and there is such a conduct of a judge, I would file for inhibition," Kapunan stated. "An inhibition has to be voluntary. That's true. So it depends on the moral compass of the person being inhibited."

Kapunan added that while a formal motion could be considered, maintaining working relationships between institutions remains a factor.

"Assuming we can, or assuming the public prosecutors decide... relationships will continue between the Senate and the House, and I guess there is a conscious effort to keep that cordial relationship existing," she noted.

On Ending the 'Culture of Impunity'

During a discussion on government officials holding multiple roles or continuing private practice without divesting, Kapunan highlighted the broader need for strict enforcement of public standards.

"That is the practice among our government officials actually, right? It's a practice, people continue practicing law, correct? They don't divest. We must be stricter," Kapunan stated.

Kapunan noted that the outcome of the impeachment trial must address high-level misconduct and hostile responses to legal processes.

"I hope with this impeachment trial it should teach, because now it's become a culture of impunity. It's a culture of violence if the reaction of a high official to a complaint, to a summons, is violence," Kapunan added.

On Elevating the Senate Voting Calculation to the Supreme Court

Drilon asked about the rules governing the Senate vote count for conviction or acquittal: "Is there no justiciable event yet that can spur you to go to the Supreme Court?"

Drilon pointed to the ruling by the presiding officer requiring 16 affirmative votes, calculated from the total number of Senate seats including absent or jailed members. Kapunan agreed that the calculation presents a legal question.

"I think there is wisdom in the presiding officer saying we will stick by affirmative votes of 16 of all of the senators, counting even those who are in jail or cannot be found. I think that by itself now raises a constitutional justiciable issue," Kapunan said.

When Drilon asked what prevents a petition from being filed, Kapunan pointed out that the original private complainants have the necessary legal standing to challenge the rule before the Supreme Court.

"There is a justiciable event... third and fourth [impeachment complainants], they have standing to sue. If I were to give my 10 cents' worth, I would say [go to the Supreme Court], because at least you'll know."