The impeachment case against the second highest official of the Philippines will occupy the airwaves from now on until the next presidential election in 2028. The case could be terminated earlier but its resultant effect would still be felt even after the elections.
VP Sara Duterte was impeached last February on charges of graft, corruption and an alleged assassination plot against President Marcos Jr., FL Liza Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez. If convicted, she would be removed as vice president and would permanently be banned from public office.
But while VP Sara is the respondent in the impeachment case, ironically the Senate itself, the institution acting as an impeachment court would be the one on trial. Blame this on its actions since it received the articles of impeachment (AOI) on February 5, 2025.
The Senate knew that the House of Representatives (HOR) had been receiving impeachment complaints in December 2024. This should have been enough to send signals to the Senate leadership and members to prepare for their inescapable role of transforming into an impeachment court once it received the AOI.
This did not happen. Instead, Senate President Chiz Escudero, with his calculation of time, scheduled the opening of the impeachment court on June 2, 2025 which was already four months from the time the senate received the AOI.
The senate leadership cannot accuse the congressmen of dilly-dallying in submitting the AOI because they caught up with the deadline on February 5. From all angles, it is very clear that it was the Senate that delayed the much-awaited impeachment trial by not convening an impeachment court.
Adding salt to injury, SP Escudero further delayed his June 2 schedule by moving it to June 11. Members of the HOR acting as prosecutors who agreed with the schedule of the SP were prepared to read the articles of impeachment on June 11, but this was not to happen.
Because on June 10, one day before the scheduled reading of the AOI, SP Escudero took his oath as presiding senate-judge, followed by the oath of the senator-judges. As if they were following an agreed drama script, Senator-Judge Bato dela Rosa moved to dismiss the impeachment case against VP Sara.
I understood why SP Escudero had to first take his oath as presiding judge, followed by the oath of the rest of the senators to make Bato’s motion officially made in an impeachment court. The problem is that he made the motion without the HOR prosecutors. The script suddenly changed with the actors trapped in their own net.
Bato acted as a defense lawyer of VP Sara, so with Cayetano who amended Bato’s motion by changing the motion to dismiss to returning the complaint to the HOR, an action that’s in violation of the Constitution no matter where you look at it.
The senator-judge movants in their impeachment robes said they are returning the AOI to the HOR who would certify that they did not violate the one-year ban on filing an impeachment complaint and to find out if the new Congress would agree to continue to pursue the complaints versus VP Sara.
But lawyer Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution said the Senate is mandated to proceed with an impeachment trial instead of looking into whether or not the HOR rules.
As I watched the exchanges of ideas of lawyers and political analysts in videos online, it was plain to see that the clarifications from the senator-judges can be asked from the HOR prosecutors once the impeachment court convenes.
No senate-judge can make a motion on the floor like Senator-Judge Bato did when he moved to dismiss the complaints against VP Sara, acting like a defense lawyer. Presiding Senator-Judge Escudero who certainly knew this did not lift a finger to stop Bato, instead he even allowed Senator-Judge Cayetano to amend Bato’s motion.
Eighteen senators voted in favor of the motion to remand the impeachment case back to the HOR. The 18 senator-judges were aware that they were to conduct a trial, but instead they chose to become defense lawyers for the respondent. With all that, the Senate is now the one on trial.
The HOR can reject the AOI that was sent back to them by the Senate. Any ordinary student of a law school would agree that the HOR’s job was already finished when they submitted the AOI to the Senate, and there is no provision in the Constitution that says the Senate can return the AOI.
As debates and discussions about the railroaded impeachment trial continue, several universities have joined together in front of the senate building urging the Senate, supposedly the last bastion of democracy, to proceed with the impeachment trial of VP Sara.
This shows that college students across the country, especially those enrolled in the five Ateneo law schools, University of Santo Tomas (UST), University of the Philippines (UP) are very much aware of the constitutional duty of the Senate to act on impeachment cases without delay.
They called on the Senate to conduct a fair and impartial trial, setting aside their political colors which we all know is hard to do. The best that the impeachment court could ensure is to see that public office accountability would be upheld.
It is the Senate that is on trial, not Sara.
