Power plays in Sara’s impeachment case
To allow any form of remand, summary dismissal, or procedural delay is to defy the clear constitutional command and to undermine the rule of law.
Text size
To allow any form of remand, summary dismissal, or procedural delay is to defy the clear constitutional command and to undermine the rule of law.
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
There is loud talk and growing concern the present Senate leadership is hemming and hawing re the impeachment trial not on legal grounds but on political calculations tied to the upcoming 20th Congress.
It is widely believed the leadership is wary of the tight contest for the Senate presidency in the next Congress, where at least six senators loyal to the Dutertes are expected to vote as a bloc for the candidate who will block or stall a full impeachment trial. This political bargaining threatens to turn the Senate into a venue where accountability is sacrificed for power plays.
The impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte must proceed to a full trial in the Senate — not only because the Constitution mandates it, but because this requirement aligns with the fundamental principles of impeachment as practiced in the world’s leading democracies, particularly the United States, on which our system was modeled.
To allow any form of remand, summary dismissal, or procedural delay is to defy the clear constitutional command and to undermine the rule of law.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is unequivocal. Article XI, Section 3(4) states that when at least one-third of the House of Representatives files a verified impeachment complaint, “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
The use of “shall” and “forthwith” imposes a mandatory, immediate duty on the Senate to convene as an impeachment court and conduct a full trial. This is not a discretionary power or an option to be exercised at the Senate’s convenience. The Senate’s sole power is to try and decide impeachment cases, as explicitly provided in Article XI, Section 3(6). To remand the complaint back to the House or to dismiss it without trial is a clear violation of the Constitution.
This constitutional mandate is not unique to the Philippines. The impeachment system, as a mechanism of accountability for high officials, has its origins in democratic systems such as the United States, from where the framers of our Constitution drew inspiration.
In the US, impeachment is a two-stage process: the House of Representatives impeaches and the Senate conducts a trial. The Senate trial is a full judicial proceeding where evidence is presented, witnesses are examined, and both prosecution and defense make their case before the senators vote for conviction or acquittal. This process is not a mere formality, it is a solemn obligation that ensures fairness, transparency and due process.
Similarly, in Brazil, after the lower chamber approves an impeachment, the Senate conducts a comprehensive trial with hearings, presentation of evidence and defense rights, presided over by the Supreme Court president.
South Korea entrusts impeachment trials to its Constitutional Court which examines the evidence and arguments before making a decision.
Other democracies like France, Italy, Hungary and Norway also require full trials before special courts or legislative bodies, ensuring that impeachment is not a tool for political expediency but a constitutional safeguard.
Why is a full trial with a presentation of evidence so indispensable?
First, impeachment involves serious consequences — removal from office and disqualification from future public service. The accused deserves a fair hearing where all the evidence can be scrutinized and challenged.
Second, a transparent trial fosters public trust in the process and its outcome, reinforcing the legitimacy of democratic institutions.
Third, it ensures the separation of powers and prevents arbitrary or politically motivated removals. Finally, it upholds the rule of law by adhering to constitutional safeguards.
Allowing the Senate to dismiss or remand the impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte without a full trial would set a dangerous precedent.
It would turn the Senate into a political gatekeeper rather than an impartial court of impeachment. It would also deny the Filipino people their right to see justice done openly and fairly. The Senate’s leadership or internal political calculations must never be allowed to override its constitutional duty.
The impeachment trial of Sara Duterte must proceed in full conformity with the Constitution. The Senate’s obligation to conduct a full trial is not only a legal imperative but a democratic necessity. It is the only way to uphold accountability, protect due process, and maintain the integrity of our constitutional system.
Any attempt to avoid or delay the trial — especially if motivated by political bargaining tied to the Senate presidency — is a betrayal of the people’s trust and the rule of law.
