top of page

BASTE DUTERTE DECLARED HOSTILE WITNESS IN SARA IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

Writer: Arvin Enriquez
Arvin Enriquez
Sep 29
2 min read

Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte was declared a hostile witness by the Senate impeachment court on Tuesday, September 29, during the impeachment trial of his sister, Vice President Sara Duterte.



During direct examination, House prosecution counsel Theodore Te asked Baste whether he had previously made statements about the impeachment case in media interviews.



Baste initially said, “As of now, I do not remember any statement pertaining to the impeachment trials.”


Prosecutors then presented a screenshot of a statement posted on Baste’s Facebook page. The mayor confirmed that the statement was his.


Te proceeded to read a portion of the post in which Baste said the impeachment proceedings were aimed at “preventing the vice president” from running in the 2028 elections. Baste again confirmed that the statement came from him.


The prosecution then sought to establish that Baste’s position was contrary to its interests in the proceedings. Despite objections from the defense, the impeachment court granted the prosecution’s request and formally designated Baste as a hostile witnes.


The designation allows the prosecution greater latitude in questioning him, including the use of leading questions during direct examination.



Baste was subpoenaed to testify in connection with the prosecution’s examination of Vice President Duterte’s declared business interests and transactions involving the Davao City government. In particular, prosecutors have sought records concerning GenCorp Industries, a company listed among the Vice President’s declared business interests.


The prosecution had previously indicated that it intended to have Baste declared hostile, citing the expected difficulty of questioning him given his relationship with the respondent.


Baste’s earlier claim that the impeachment was intended to prevent Sara Duterte from running in 2028 has also been publicly disputed by Malacañang, which said the proceedings concern issues of accountability and transparency.

Comments


bottom of page