Since the 1987 Constitution came into effect, we, as a nation, witnessed impeachment proceedings end with a proper conviction only once — in the case of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

While former President Joseph Estrada’s case was the first (making it the landmark) impeachment case ever successfully initiated which went to trial, he was never actually convicted because the senator-judges walked out in the middle of the proceedings. This led to what is known as EDSA II, which catapulted then Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the highest post in the land.

Another Chief Justice, Maria Lourdes Sereno, was also impeached at the House level, but her actual removal from office was by virtue of a quo warranto proceeding. Meanwhile, erstwhile Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and former Chairman of the Commission on Elections, Andres Bautista, both resigned their posts before their impeachment trials could begin. Their resignations did away with the necessity of an impeachment trial for mootness.

As the national campaign heats up, the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte has taken center stage. But the debate continues as to whether the Senate under the 20th Congress can hear an impeachment complaint filed by the lower house under the 19th Congress.

Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. While there’s no explicit mention that the impeachment process must start anew with each Congress, there is also no such prohibition.

Considering the sui generis nature of impeachment proceedings, many submit that Congress should be considered a continuing body for impeachment purposes. Under this view, impeachment, as a political process and a remedy, is not necessarily tied to the term of officials but is anchored on public accountability. The continuity of the impeachment process is not subject to the same “refiling” requirement as regular legislative bills. Moreover, the trial should be conducted “forthwith.”

However, those against, argue that each Congress is a new body with new members and, thus, unfinished business from the previous Congress does not automatically carry over. They posit that since the impeachment complaint filed during the 19th Congress had not been acted upon by the Senate it should be considered under “unfinished business” rendering the endorsement inutile.

Ultimately, the real arbiter as to whether or not the impeachment complaint endorsed by the 19th Congress may be heard by the Senate under the 20th Congress is the Supreme Court.

Beyond the legalities, the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte is a divisive issue that has permanently shattered the “sama-sama tayong babangon muli” (together we shall rise again) tagline espoused by the UniTeam in the 2022 elections.

Suffice it to say that the filling of the 12 Senate seats has turned into a battle for votes for or against the removal of the Vice President. Still, it is too early to tell what the outcome of a trial may be, or if a trial will happen at all in June, as the Senate President has announced.

Meanwhile, many pressing issues have been drowned out by the noise from the ongoing political zarzuela. The alarming rise in brazen criminal activities and rampant drug use. The unresolved issue of the rising cost of basic goods and commodities. Underemployment and the lack of decent-paying jobs.

We must ask: when will the plight of the masses become the highest, most urgent priority of our leaders and politicians?