June, usually the start of the typhoon season, will also likely be the start of a political tempest with the opening of the possible impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte — despite moves to immediately convene the Senate as an impeachment court once the Articles of Impeachment are transmitted from the House of Representatives.

Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said Senate President Vicente Sotto III wants the impeachment court convened right away. Still, procedural requirements could delay the formal start of trial proceedings by at least three weeks.

“Once the Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to us, if we follow the processes, we’re talking of at least three weeks before the actual trial starts,” Lacson said.

He explained that the Senate would first need to complete several legal procedures, including issuing a summons to the Vice President, receiving her reply, and conducting a preliminary conference during which the prosecution and defense panels may agree on stipulations and the evidence before hearings could begin.

Lacson said the pre-trial process is intended to avoid the confusion that marred the 2012 impeachment proceedings against the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“I recall that during the trial of Corona, there was no preliminary conference, so there was some confusion during the trial because surprise witnesses were introduced,” he said.

All go with no TRO

He said that defining the issues early would help streamline the proceedings and prevent unnecessary disputes during the trial itself.

Lacson also raised the possibility of the impeachment proceedings facing legal challenges before the Supreme Court (SC), particularly if a temporary restraining order (TRO) is issued.

According to Lacson, the impeachment court would deliberate collectively on how to respond should the High Court intervene.

“I believe that so long as the Supreme Court does not issue a TRO, the trial will continue,” he said, stressing that decisions of the impeachment court are constitutionally significant and subject to a vote among the senator-judges.

Lacson revealed that some senators met last Thursday to discuss the preparations for the possible historic proceedings.

During the meeting, the senators were reminded to remain impartial and “act like judges” rather than political allies of either side.

Lacson said Senator Robin Padilla, who belongs to the minority bloc, attended the meeting and was asked to relay the reminder to his fellow minority senators.

“We must listen to the questions during direct and cross examination, and base our decisions on the evidence,” he said.

Despite not being a lawyer, Lacson said he has courtroom experience from his years in law enforcement.

“I joked that I do have experience in court, not as a lawyer but as a witness. When I was a law enforcer, I took the stand as a witness or arresting officer, even as an accused,” he joked.

P27-M for Senate court

He also disclosed that around P27 million remained available for the impeachment proceedings under continuing appropriations from the 2025 budget.

He said only P512,000 from the original P27.544 million allocation had been used for senator-judges’ robes, identification cards and related materials from the budget for last year’s aborted impeachment trial of Duterte.

“If not used this year, the amount will be treated as savings and returned to the treasury,” he said.

House Committee on Justice member Terry Ridon said the 106 House votes needed to impeach Duterte will be achieved after a plenary debate.

Clinching the number would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial.

“There will be a debate in the plenary regarding the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte,” he said.

“The House Committee on Justice has very high confidence that the 106 votes needed to impeach the Vice President will be met and, correspondingly, it will go to the Senate for trial,” Ridon said during a forum.

According to the congressman, the panel is set to hold a committee report approval hearing on Monday, as the articles of impeachment are already included in the report.

“As soon as it is approved at the committee level, it will go to the plenary by next week,” Ridon said, adding that the matter will then be subjected to a plenary debate.

Ridon said there will be a consolidation of the complaints that will be presented to the plenary on Monday.

“These would be the final articles for impeachment, consolidated from the two impeachment complaints,” he noted.

Lawyer: Impeachment could be voided

A lawyer for Vice President Duterte cast doubt on a key witness in her impeachment case, warning that reliance on his testimony could lead to the complaint’s collapse due to what he described as “worthless” evidence.

In an interview, lawyer Paulo Panelo pointed to allegations made by alleged bagman Ramil Madriaga, which had been cited in the House proceedings, as being flawed.

“If that gets voided, it’s their fault — they’re presenting worthless evidence,” Panelo said, referring to the House.

Panelo challenged Madriaga’s assertions that Duterte had ordered the formation of an organization to support the Vice President, saying that available evidence contradicted the claim.

He explained that Duterte’s interaction with the group in question was limited to a single virtual meeting in October 2021, which another individual arranged.

According to Panelo, it was an intermediary who reached out to Duterte to request the meeting, undermining claims that she had a prior involvement.

Panelo said the issue has been raised in a perjury complaint against Madriaga, with the witness having submitted a counter-affidavit. He claimed the document failed to adequately refute the allegations against him.

“We saw his counter-affidavit. Once again, he failed to refute anything properly,” Panelo said.

In a supplemental affidavit, Madriaga challenged Duterte’s earlier claim that they had no personal or professional ties, presenting details that he said indicated links to both the Vice President and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.

Panelo further questioned Madriaga’s credibility, saying that even basic details about the witness may be unreliable.

“That’s the only part of what he said that’s true — even his name might not be real,” he said.

He added that public reaction to Madriaga’s testimony has also raised doubts, noting that online scrutiny has called into question the accuracy of his statements.

The statements came after the House justice panel voted 53-0 to find probable cause to proceed with the impeachment complaint against Duterte, a move, Panelo said, that the defense anticipated.

Despite preparing for a possible Senate trial, he warned that weaknesses in key testimonies, particularly those attributed to Madriaga, could affect the case’s viability.

If such evidence is deemed unreliable, Panelo said, it may ultimately undermine the entire impeachment complaint once it is subjected to stricter legal scrutiny.

The Senate has yet to set a timeline for the impeachment trial.