Those likely to play a role and those familiar with the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte have acknowledged the possibility that the process could be halted or fail to proceed to a full trial.

The move to oust Vice President Sara Duterte, initiated by the House of Representatives on 5 February this year, is based on allegations centering on the misuse of confidential funds, assassination threats, and claimed irregularities during her tenure at the Department of Education.

The case has progressed to the Senate, which is set to convene as an impeachment court, but the start of the proceedings has been delayed until 11 June.

Vice President Duterte has filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) to block the impeachment, arguing that it violates the constitutional one-year ban on successive impeachment complaints.

Duterte’s petition banks on the interpretation of the Constitution’s one-year ban as a safeguard against abuse, but its application depends on how the courts define “initiation.”

Her counsel argued that a 2023 complaint, which was dismissed without being referred to the House Committee on Justice, triggered the ban to prevent repetitive filings. If the court rules in her favor, the impeachment could be halted before a trial begins, rendering Senate proceedings unnecessary.

The legal implications for the Senate court, as highlighted by former Senate President Franklin Drilon, would either pause the trial until the Supreme Court clarifies the matter or, if necessary, abandon it altogether.

According to Drilon, three scenarios are possible: the impeachment court can rule that it has no jurisdiction, in which case there will be no trial; the process will proceed; or the ruling on jurisdiction will be deferred until the SC issues a decision.

A trial despite a pending judicial review could preempt the tribunal’s authority to settle constitutional questions. A no-trial scenario respects the separation of powers and allows the judiciary to resolve the dispute before the Senate spends resources on a likely invalid process.

This approach also avoids the risk of a constitutional crisis, which could arise if the Senate proceeds with a trial that is later deemed unconstitutional.

A top election lawyer gave a point to ponder. Romulo Macalintal has pointed out that Senate Rule 44 stipulates that all pending matters and proceedings terminate with the adjournment of Congress, which is set on the 13th of June 2025, for the 19th Congress.

The rescheduling of the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment from 2 to 11 June, announced by Senate President Francis Escudero, leaves a window of two days for the Senate to organize and conduct a trial before the session ends.

The 20th Congress starts on 28 July, raising a question on whether the impeachment can carry over. Macalintal argued that the case may die a natural death as the Senate’s term effectively expires, rendering the proceedings moot.

A no-trial outcome avoids setting a precedent for circumventing established rules, thereby preserving the integrity of the impeachment process as a constitutional safeguard rather than a political tool.

The political composition of the Senate, which is dominated by members sympathetic to the Duterte family, suggests that achieving the necessary vote to convict is improbable.

Forcing a trial under such circumstances would be a futile exercise and a waste of public resources while deepening political divisions without a prospect of conviction.

The anti-Duterte forces are also seeking to make the Senate court a venue for demolition against VP Duterte, even if a conviction is remote.

Political signals from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who has chosen to distance himself from the impeachment drama, further weaken the case’s momentum, as his allies are likely to align with his preference for reconciliation over confrontation.

Dispensing with a trial spares the nation a protracted and divisive spectacle that would end in an anticlimactic acquittal based on the reality that the trial is a political process.

Public sentiment and the political configuration suggest the abandonment of the divisive episode.