‘Respect or resist?’ Senators divided

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte has drawn sharp reactions in the Senate — with some senators calling for respect for the rule of law and others insisting the trial must push through.

Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada welcomed the ruling, saying it affirmed the importance of due process in holding public officials accountable.

“This is a good reminder that any attempt to impeach public officials must be grounded in law and procedure,” he said.

While he clarified that he wasn’t speaking for the entire Senate, Estrada said he expects the body to respect the Court’s decision once the 20th Congress convenes.

“We’ve always been committed to the rule of law. I believe the Senate will collectively stand by the Supreme Court’s ruling,” he said. “Even in politically charged proceedings like an impeachment, we must not let politics override the law.”

Estrada said it was time to focus on more urgent national issues, especially the rehabilitation of typhoon-hit areas. “Let’s stop the politicking,” he added.

Senator Imee Marcos echoed Estrada, urging her colleagues to respect the SC decision.

“Let’s respect and honor the decision of the Supreme Court,” she said in Filipino.

Then, in a jab at those continuing to push the issue: “To my fellow senators—let’s get back to work. Enough with the politicking!”

Senator Joel Villanueva also backed the High Court, saying the Senate has always acted with “prudence, not haste.”

“As an impeachment court and a legislative body, we are guided by the Constitution. We’ll continue to follow due process,” he said.

Senator Ronald “Bato” de la Rosa took a more spiritual tone, declaring the SC ruling a victory of good over evil.

“When I moved for the dismissal of the complaint against VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit,” De la Rosa said. “Now that the SC ruled it unconstitutional, I’m sure they were guided too. The Holy Spirit defeated the forces of evil! Hallelujah!”

Pushback: Trial must continue

Not all senators were on board with this, however.

Senator Bam Aquino criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, saying it intruded on the Senate’s constitutional authority.

“I firmly believe the impeachment trial should continue,” Aquino said in a statement. “The Senate is a co-equal branch of government. We must respect the impeachment process.”

He called for an urgent Senate caucus, warning that the SC ruling could undermine their constitutional duty. “Let’s talk about this immediately. Our mandate in the Constitution is clear,” he added.

Opposition Senator Risa Hontiveros also expressed deep concern, saying the decision added unnecessary hurdles to the impeachment process.

“It’s alarming. The Court seems to have added a long list of new requirements before an impeachment can even begin,” she said.

She pointed out that the Constitution is clear: public office is a public trust.

“No one has a right to cling to office. All public officials are accountable to the Filipino people,” Hontiveros said. “We will keep fighting to defend the people’s right to hold their leaders accountable.”

Hontiveros questioned the SC’s interpretation of the “one-year bar rule,” saying the Court seemed to misapply it.

Citing the 2011 Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives ruling, she said the rule was meant to prevent harassment through repeated impeachment filings in a year—not to block a single legitimate complaint.

“There was only one case referred to the Senate,” she pointed out. “The SC’s own decision from before made it clear that the bar referred to time, not the number of complaints.”

Senate can still proceed?

Several senators questioned whether the Senate could—or should—go forward with the impeachment trial anyway.

Former Senate President Tito Sotto said the Senate, as a co-equal branch of government, has the power to act independently.

“I’d rather hear first what the House of Representatives has to say,” Sotto said. “But a legal expert told me we could disregard the SC ruling because it oversteps our authority. That’s something I’ll study further.”

Aquino and Hontiveros shared the same belief—that the Senate retained the constitutional authority to proceed.

Senator Kiko Pangilinan, while cautious about commenting without reading the full ruling, questioned whether the Court ignored the presumption of regularity in Senate actions.

“It’s worth asking: would the decision be the same if the Senate had simply followed the constitutional mandate to ‘forthwith proceed with the trial’? After all, there was no restraining order from the SC when the petition was filed,” Pangilinan said.

Villanueva also said the impeachment court has the final say.

“Sui generis ang impeachment court—it’s unique,” he explained. “Whether or not the SC issued this decision, someone was bound to raise it during trial. But ultimately, the impeachment court will vote on whether to heed or disregard the SC’s ruling. That’s our call.”

Impeach court spox: We will abide

Earlier, Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol said the chamber will abide by the High Court’s decision, calling it a reaffirmation of the rule of law and the Senate’s role as a co-equal branch of government.

“As an impeachment court, the Senate has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. We are duty-bound to respect the finality of the Court’s rulings,” Tongol told reporters.

The Supreme Court halted the proceedings, citing violations of the one-year ban on initiating multiple impeachments against the same official, as well as Duterte’s right to due process.

Tongol said the ruling validated the Senate’s cautious approach, which included suspending proceedings while awaiting judicial clarity.

“It affirms the prudence and restraint shown by the Senate majority in acknowledging the legal uncertainties from the outset,” he said.

The Senate is awaiting the official transmittal of the full decision, which Tongol said could help guide the chamber in handling similar cases in the future.