‘Not the Wild Wild West:’ Senator Cayetano warns vs. shortcutting law in VP trial

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano on Monday urged the Senate impeachment court to strictly uphold legal safeguards in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, warning that the pursuit of transparency and accountability must not compromise the rule of law.

Cayetano raised the issue as the court weighed evidence regarding Duterte’s financial records, emphasizing that while impeachment proceedings serve a public interest, the Senate remains bound by statutory restrictions.

Addressing Senate Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, Cayetano acknowledged the dual political and legal nature of the trial.

“We want the public to know [the truth] as much as possible, and we want to hold impeachable officers accountable. So there are competing values here,” the Minority Leader said.

“But this is not the Wild Wild West. Just because we're curious or want to hold someone accountable doesn't mean we won't follow the rules,” he added.

Cayetano specifically questioned how far the court could apply the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), citing its explicit safeguard against political persecution.

“Where is the line? Where is the line between transparency, accountability, and a strict interpretation of the law?” he asked.

Drawing on precedents from the impeachment trials of former Presidents Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, as well as the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, Cayetano noted that past Senate courts consistently respected clear statutory limits.

He pointed out that during the Corona trial, the Senate refrained from opening foreign currency accounts after the Supreme Court affirmed their strict confidentiality.

“There was always a common denominator: we stopped, we did not bend the law, and we protected the Constitution. Why? Because that is more important than holding one person accountable,” Cayetano said.

He contrasted that restraint with Monday’s testimony from Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Atty. Ronel Buenaventura, who discussed dollar transactions without first establishing whether the court was legally authorized to examine them.

Cayetano also noted key differences between the Corona trial and the current proceedings regarding the timeframe of admissible evidence.

While the Corona court permitted a 10-year lookback to establish a baseline, Cayetano argued that the current trial is governed by a distinct legal context following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives.

“That’s the prevailing Supreme Court decision. If we disagree, we challenge it. We don't just declare here that it doesn't apply—it's quite clear. How many times do we have to violate the Constitution in this court when it's very, very clear?” Cayetano warned.

He added that because the prosecution already possesses documents covering Duterte’s current term, pushing for records from earlier periods is unnecessary.

Rather than expanding the scope of potentially inadmissible evidence, he urged prosecutors to focus on material that properly falls within the court's jurisdiction.

Cayetano shared that law students had asked him why the Senate continues to receive evidence with contested legal foundations.

“The judges have to be able to render a judgment out of fairness based on the law,” he said.

“We're not arguing on the facts or the evidence right now, Mr. President. We're arguing on the application of the law—what is allowed and what is forbidden.” -Paraluman News