The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has entered a critical phase as the prosecution seeks to use her as a witness against herself.House private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan revealed that the prosecution's strategy includes presenting Duterte's alleged actions, including threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., as key evidence.

Legal experts like Tony La Viña argue that Duterte's testimony, if compelled, would be performative and lack substantive value, focusing instead on her demeanor and respect for judicial authority.

However, defense spokesperson Michael Poa emphasized constitutional protections against self-incrimination, citing Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.

The court faces a procedural dilemma: whether to compel Duterte's testimony, which could trigger her right against self-incrimination for criminal implications.

Law professor Oliver Xavier Reyes noted that if Duterte testifies voluntarily, the prosecution can confront her, but the decision ultimately rests with the impeachment court's presiding officer.

The trial, which involves four articles of impeachment—misuse of funds, unexplained wealth, bribery, and threats—highlights the complex legal and political dynamics surrounding Duterte's potential testimony.

Legal scholars stress the importance of establishing a pattern through prior behavior, while the court's ruling could set a precedent for future impeachment cases.