Theatrical Absence: Curating Presence, Procedural Worthiness, and the Politics of a Vice Presidential Nonappearance
Theatrical Absence: Curating Presence, Procedural Worthiness, and the Politics of a Vice Presidential Nonappearance
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
Vice President Sara Duterte’s decision not to attend the House Committee on Justice’s April 14–15, 2026 preliminary hearings is a defensible procedural posture: counsel appeared, the hearings remain a threshold screening rather than a trial, and attendance now risks conferring legitimacy on a forum whose impartiality is contested.
---
Curatorial Frame
As a cultural gatekeeper I treat political procedure as an exhibitionary practice: the House Committee’s hearings are a gallery of documents, witnesses, and staged gestures. The April 14–15 hearings functioned as a screening, not an adjudicative performance, where the committee determines whether the complaint meets thresholds of form and substance before any trial-like fact-finding occurs.
In this exhibition, the principal (the Vice President) elects to remain offstage while her counsel, Atty. Michael Poa, performs the representational duties that law permits and politics interprets. His presence at the Batasang Pambansa on April 14 is itself a curatorial act: it signals engagement without surrendering the conditions under which the principal will be exposed.
To demand corporeal attendance at this juncture is to mistake spectacle for substance. A curator knows that unveiling is timed; premature exposure can distort reception and foreclose fair critique. The legal right to be heard is not a summons to be present at every public showing; it is a promise of a hearing at the proper procedural moment. When the forum’s tenor is prosecutorial and the process is contested—indeed, when petitions and TROs are filed—presence can become endorsement.
---
Disconfirming the Alternative
The alternative claim—that nonappearance equals evasion—collapses two distinct logics. Legally, representation by counsel satisfies due-process participation at a preliminary stage; the burden of production lies with the complainant. Tactically, personal attendance in a forum already framed as prosecutorial risks legitimizing a process whose impartiality is under legal challenge. Both premises of the counter-claim fail: absence here is not abdication but calibrated refusal.
---
Curatorial Narrative Critique
The hearings reveal how institutions manufacture legitimacy through ritualized visibility. Media headlines—“no-show,” “skips hearing”—translate procedural discretion into moral indictment. A cultural worker must resist this reduction: insist that thresholds be met before demanding the principal’s corporeal presence, and interrogate how spectacle substitutes for adjudication in a polity where image often outruns law.
---
Expanded Summative
- Hearings held: April 14–15, 2026.
- Counsel present: Atty. Michael Poa attended the April 14 session.
- Vice President’s stance: Camp signaled nonattendance; petitions/TROs filed contesting process.
---
Footnotes
1. See live coverage of April 14–15 hearings.
2. Report on Michael Poa’s appearance at the House.
3. Statements by counsel indicating VP nonattendance and legal contestation.
4. Live stream and witness testimony coverage.
Selected Bibliography
- “LIVE UPDATES: Sara Duterte impeachment hearing | April 14.” Inquirer.net, April 14–15, 2026.
- Abanto, Rowegie. “Michael Poa attends 2nd VP Sara impeachment hearing proper.” ABS-CBN News, April 14, 2026.
- Llanesca T. Panti. “Poa: VP Sara not attending impeachment hearing.” GMA News Online, April 14, 2026.
- “LIVE | Ramil Madriaga, Michael Poa testify in VP Sara Duterte impeachment probe (April 14, 2026).” YouTube/News5Everywhere, April 14, 2026.
---
The narrative that Vice President Sara Duterte is “not around” has been mobilized as a rhetorical device to imply evasion. This essay contends that such a portrayal is legally tenuous. At present the proceedings before the House Committee on Justice are preliminary: their purpose is to assess whether the complaint satisfies formal and substantive thresholds, not to adjudicate guilt or innocence. The characterization of absence as dereliction therefore conflates distinct stages of a legal process and risks misrepresenting the Vice President’s procedural rights.
Legal Context
Preliminary committee inquiries function as screening mechanisms. Their remit is limited to determining whether a complaint is sufficient in form, substance, and grounds to warrant further action. They are not trials; they do not require the respondent to mount a full evidentiary defense. The constitutional guarantee of due process secures the right to be heard, but that right is exercised at the appropriate procedural juncture, not by compulsory attendance at every investigatory hearing. Representation by counsel is a recognized and constitutionally defensible mode of participation; the appearance of counsel—here, Atty. Michael Poa—constitutes valid representation and should not be dismissed as mere theatrics.
Procedural Analysis
Preliminary proceedings allocate the burden of production primarily to the complainant. The committee must first establish that there exists a prima facie basis to proceed. It is therefore neither procedurally required nor strategically prudent for a respondent to treat such hearings as forums for exhaustive defense. To insist otherwise is to invert the allocation of responsibilities that governs early-stage inquiries. Moreover, when the investigatory environment exhibits a prosecutorial tenor or an apparent predisposition to advance the complaint, a respondent’s voluntary attendance may inadvertently confer legitimacy on a process that has not yet satisfied the threshold of impartiality.
Normative Considerations
The question of presence should be evaluated against the worthiness of the forum. Presence confers power only insofar as the forum is capable of delivering a fair and balanced adjudication. Compulsory attendance at a politically charged preliminary hearing risks transforming procedural participation into symbolic endorsement. Prudential restraint—exercised through counsel and reserved for stages where the law demands the respondent’s direct engagement—can therefore be a legitimate exercise of procedural rights rather than an evasion of accountability.
Conclusion
The salient inquiry is not merely “Where is the Vice President” but whether the current process merits her personal appearance. Given the preliminary character of the committee’s proceedings, the constitutional protections that govern the right to be heard, and the validity of counsel representation, the rhetorical framing of absence as evasion is legally weak. Presence is meaningful only when the forum is worthy of it; until that threshold is demonstrably met, strategic reliance on counsel and on procedural safeguards is a defensible and constitutionally grounded posture.
---
*** credit to the owners of the photo & articles otherwise cited
If you like my any of my concept research, writing explorations, art works and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me or GXI 09053027965. Much appreciate and thank you in advance.
Just featured at https://www.pressenza.com/2026/01/the-asian-cultural-council-global-alumni-network-amiel-gerald-a-roldan/
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ curatorial writing practice exemplifies this path: transforming grief into infrastructure, evidence into agency, and memory into resistance. As the Philippines enters a new economic decade, such work is not peripheral—it is foundational.
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs and prompts. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
Please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
https://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philanthropy while working for institutions simultaneously early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/voluntary services entity and aims to remain so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
Furthermore, the commentary reflects my personal interpretation of publicly available data and is offered as fair comment on matters of public interest. It does not allege criminal liability or wrongdoing by any individual.
Comments
Post a Comment