Not for Sale

“My testimony is not for sale, sir.”

Of course not. Whoever said it was for sale?

Retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang made that declaration during her cross-examination by defense counsel Mark Vinluan in the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. She was directly addressing and rejecting suggestions that she was receiving personal or material favors in exchange for serving as a witness.

The exchange began when defense counsel asked whether she had been offered or promised anything in return for taking the witness stand for the prosecution. She pushed back by firmly and respectfully denying this, stating she would never testify if offered anything, material or otherwise. Despite this clear response, the defense counsel still insisted on asking if she was seeking an ambassadorial post in exchange for her appearance. Cabotaje-Tang dismissed the idea, emphasizing that she is fully retired and simply wishes to enjoy her retirement. (I wonder what country the defense was insinuating the retired Presiding Justice would even want to be ambassador to.)

This reminded me of something a friend shared with me a couple of months ago. For context, the characters in this anecdote are a former OFW mother and her adult businessman son. Mother is pro-Duterte. Son is anti-Duterte. They were at home together with the son’s wife and daughters, having dinner while watching the news.

Then came news reports of Senators Escudero and Villanueva breaking from their original faction in the Alan Peter Cayetano bloc to attend key sessions—during the time when the former majority boycotted sessions, causing a bitter parliamentary standoff. The pro-Duterte mother blurted out: “Hala kamo, Escudero saka Villanueva, nagkabarayadan na kamo!” ("Look at you, Escudero and Villanueva, you’ve been bought off!") The anti-Duterte son sat at the dinner table stunned, keeping mum to avoid an argument.

When I later mentioned to a friend the insinuation that the senators shifted alliances in exchange for favors (financial or otherwise), she responded with, “Malay mo, iyo talaga.” ("Who knows, maybe it's true.") Inside, I was exclaiming, What? But then, in Philippine politics, who knows?

When I read the headline, watched the details, and remembered that dinner table story, I saw a clear connection of perception. Our countrymen who support the Vice President genuinely believe that people who support the President, back the government, or testify for the prosecution do so because they have been bribed with favors—that they would not do so unless promised grand gratuities.

It should not be any wonder. This perception stems directly from the top of their camp. During the buildup to the impeachment complaints, the Vice President publicly claimed that House leadership was promising lawmakers specific district budget allocations and project insertions in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) in exchange for signing or voting in favor of the impeachment complaint.

Among lower-income demographics and pro-Duterte bases, the narrative that congressmen were "bought" or offered infrastructure/social aid packages (like AKAP or TUPAD) to sign impeachment complaints resonates strongly. Independent survey research and academic analyses consistently highlight this skepticism. Broad national surveys from Pulse Asia and SWS show that while urban, middle-to-upper-class voters (Classes A, B, and C) pay closer attention to formal audit reports and constitutional grounds, lower-income voters consistently rank "political infighting" as the main driver of congressional investigations.

Well, the perceptions go vice versa.

Senators, congressmen, and government officials who align themselves with the Vice President are perceived as securing their political futures because the VP is considered a strong contender for President come 2028. We all understand core loyalists like Senators dela Rosa, Go, Marcoleta, and Padilla rallying behind the Dutertes, but how did Senators Imee Marcos, Loren Legarda, Chiz Escudero, and Joel Villanueva find their way along with the VP at various points? Don’t Senators Estrada and Revilla have their own independent bases?

Political commentators point to the long-term, transactional nature of executive political coalitions. Public officials who defy current congressional consensus to defend VP Sara are essentially making a high-yield political investment. By standing by her during her political vulnerabilities (such as budget probes and impeachment proceedings), these allies position themselves for top-tier appointments—including Cabinet secretary positions, agency heads, and priority infrastructure backing—should she win the presidency in 2028.

So, that’s the complete picture. Each side looks at the other as selling out their principles. Each side looks down on the other as being motivated purely by favors to be received or promised.

Exodus 23:8: “…a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the innocent."”