CJ as trial officer?

There is a camp of legal luminaries advocating for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to be added as a presiding officer of the impeachment court, alongside the Senate President, in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Under Section 4(6), Article 11 of the Constitution, when the President is on trial, the Chief Justice shall preside over the impeachment trial. Under Section 3, Article VII, the Vice President may be removed from office “in the same manner” as the President. Since the manner of removing the President is through an impeachment trial, where the SC Chief Justice serves as the presiding officer, it follows that the Chief Justice must also preside over the impeachment trial of the Vice President.

During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, however, Commissioner Christian Monsod stated that when the President is on trial, it is the only time the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. At the same time, Commissioner Hilario Davide noted that in all other cases, it would be the Senate President who would preside over the proceedings.

Nonetheless, under Section 3 (6) and Article 11 of the Constitution, the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. It shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the process.

The power to decide an impeachment case and promulgate rules includes the authority to interpret the constitutional provision regarding who will serve as the presiding officer.

Even in the US, who shall be the presiding officer is not set in stone.

On 13 January 2021, the US House of Representatives impeached President Donald Trump for inciting to insurrection involving the attack on the US Capitol. The Article of Impeachment was filed one week before his term expired. The Senate commenced the impeachment trial after Trump had left office.

Under the US Constitution, the Chief Justice must preside over an impeachment trial involving the President. However, the Senate, in a majority vote, made the Senate President Pro Tempore the presiding officer of the impeachment trial.

According to the US Senate, the constitutional provision that requires the Chief Justice to preside over an impeachment trial of the President did not apply in this case because Trump was no longer the sitting President.

Under Philippine Senate Resolution 39 dated 23 March 2021 (the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trial), when the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. The President of the Senate shall preside in all other cases of impeachment.

The Senate adopted Senate Resolution 39 on 10 June 2025 in connection with the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte.

Following this resolution, the Senate President, and not the SC Chief Justice, shall preside over her impeachment trial.

Article XI, Section 3(6) and (8) vests the Senate with the “sole power” to try and decide impeachment cases and to promulgate the rules to govern such proceedings. This authority includes the power to interpret procedural aspects of impeachment, such as determining the presiding officer. The Senate’s ability to set its own rules is a recognition of its autonomy as a co-equal branch of government, allowing it to adapt procedures to the specific context of each impeachment case.

The provision opens up an option for the Chief Justice to play a principal role in the trial, as it is permitted under the provisions of the Charter.

Definite timeline needed

Under the Biofuels Act of 2006, the coco methyl ester (CME) content of local diesel is supposed to increase by one percent annually. However, the blend has remained at two percent since 2007. The law also requires that all biodiesel components be locally sourced to reduce fuel imports and support rural livelihoods.

Energy Undersecretary Alessandro O. Sales, however, said the rollout of higher biodiesel blends in October will be postponed to avoid an additional price pressure on motorists.

“The National Biofuels Board met two weeks ago and decided to pass the resolution suspending the implementation of the B4 blend in October 2025, as well as the implementation of the B5 blend in October 2026,” Sales said.

Sales, who oversees the DoE’s Oil Industry Management Bureau, pointed to the steep increase in coconut oil prices—the primary feedstock for CME as the key reason for the decision.

“At the beginning of 2024, the price of coconut oil in the international market was about $1,100 per metric ton. At the time of the NBB decision, the price was over $3,000 per metric ton,” he said, adding that although prices have dipped slightly, it remains “a significant increase.”

“The increase translates to a higher cost of diesel at the pump because of the mandate. And increasing the mandate now to B4 would add to this price pressure,” he said.

A resolution, now being routed for signature by member agencies, does not abandon the country’s plan to increase the biodiesel blend but allows for time for further study.

“The intent to increase the blend is still there,” he said, noting that the NBB will conduct periodic market and logistics assessments.

Chemrez Technologies Inc. (CTI), the country’s largest biofuel producer, is pressing for a more precise timeline for the resumption of higher biodiesel blends, allowing sufficient lead time for preparation.

“The industry awaits a more definite date for the resumption of the B4 mandate from the NBB. It needs at least five months to prepare for implementation,” CTI president Dean A. Lao Jr. said on Friday.

Lao acknowledged the “sensible recommendations to postpone” the rollout of the higher blend made by the NBB and the Philippine Coconut Authority. Still, they emphasized that “the progression towards B5 remains a sound and sustainable solution for the Philippines to attain its economic, environmental, and health goals.”