Trillanes is poisoning the well

Sonny Trillanes may want Sara Duterte convicted. But in his eagerness to get his hands into another political skirmish, he risks doing something remarkably counterproductive: undermining the credibility of the very impeachment trial that could convict her.

Over the past few days, Trillanes has taken his grievances outside the impeachment court and into press conferences and media interviews, directing much of his fire at Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero.

The problem is that an impeachment trial cannot be credible only when its presiding officer makes decisions favorable to one side.

Escudero was chosen by the Senate to preside over the proceedings. His rulings can be challenged, debated and even overturned by the senator-judges. That has already happened. The impeachment court itself overturned his earlier interpretation requiring 16 votes for conviction.

That is how an institution is supposed to work, and why Trillanes’ attacks are so dangerous.

He has suggested that Escudero deliberately prevented him from testifying by refusing to issue his subpoena. Yet Senators Ping Lacson and Win Gatchalian have since clarified that the decision was not Escudero’s alone, but involved the impeachment court. The prosecution itself eventually decided not to present Trillanes as a witness.

If Trillanes possesses evidence against Sara Duterte, then that evidence should be tested through the proper legal process whenever admissible. Let witnesses testify. Let lawyers argue. Let senator-judges rule.

But when a political combatant begins publicly questioning the motives of the presiding officer whenever the proceedings do not go his way, he creates exactly the narrative the prosecution should want to avoid:

That this is not a trial, but a witch hunt.

There lies the irony.

The Yellows, Pinks and other forces supporting impeachment should be among the first to tell Trillanes to exercise restraint. Because every allegation of manipulation, every insinuation that the presiding officer is secretly protecting Duterte, casts another shadow over the institution conducting the trial.

And there is an even stranger political contradiction: that Trillanes is attacking the credibility of a process unfolding while a Marcos remains in Malacañang.

If he portrays the impeachment court as compromised, manipulated or politically controlled, what exactly does that say about the broader political environment that allowed this prosecution to proceed?

Trillanes should remember what is at stake.

This is bigger than Chiz Escudero. Bigger than Trillanes. Bigger even than Sara Duterte.

If impeachment is to mean anything, its verdict must emerge from a process Filipinos can believe was fair.

You cannot demand respect for the verdict while poisoning confidence in the trial.