Conviction vs Sara unlikely despite impeachment trial — analyst
Text size
After the House of Representatives voted to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte, a political analyst said the Senate would undoubtedly convene as an impeachment court, although securing a conviction would be difficult.
During an interview on the DAILY TRIBUNE’s “Usapang OFW” program, lawyer Edward Chico said the upper chamber is constitutionally mandated to commence an impeachment trial and that failure to do so could result in legal repercussions.
Despite this constitutional requirement, Chico noted that the recent leadership change in the Senate could likely result in Duterte’s acquittal over allegations involving unexplained wealth, misuse of public funds, bribery and grave threats against high-ranking officials.
“Honestly, right now, if you go by the numbers, it would be difficult to convict the Vice President,” Chico said.
Aside from the supposed number of Duterte-allied senators in the majority, Chico also referred to alleged and unconfirmed findings from the device of former Department of Public Works and Highways engineer Brice Hernandez, which supposedly contained names of senators not previously disclosed in cases linked to the flood control scandal.
According to Chico, such information could potentially be used as leverage to ensure that Duterte would not be impeached and disqualified from seeking public office in 2028.
The analyst also pointed out that despite the evidence presented during hearings before the House Committee on Justice, the impeachment process remains inherently political.
With another impeachment complaint now targeting Duterte, Chico said outright dismissal of the impeachment articles would not be a logical step for the Senate, considering the extensive process undertaken by the House to determine the sufficiency of the complaints.
Asked about the possibility of evidence suppression, Chico said it was inevitable that senators allied with the Vice President would challenge evidence against her as inadmissible, while evidence favorable to her would likely be accepted.
“What the people don’t understand is that even the Supreme Court has already recognized this. That is just how impeachment goes. Like I said, this is ‘sui generis’ — it’s a class by itself. Nothing compares to this,” he said.
“This is the only type of case where even before starting, you already know the result based on who you see they might vote for. You know they will court each other, and you know they will endeavor to find a way to give this a semblance of legitimacy, but at the end of the day this is a numbers game,” he added.
Doubling down on his earlier remarks, Chico reiterated his forecast that Duterte would likely be acquitted given the political circumstances surrounding the impeachment process.
He noted that similar precedents exist in the United States, where votes for removal and disqualification are treated separately.
Chico further said the only way Duterte could be convicted would be if the evidence against her became undeniable.
In such a scenario, he said the Senate could potentially decide to remove her from office without necessarily imposing perpetual disqualification from seeking public office in 2028.
Under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, judgments in impeachment cases are limited to removal from office and disqualification from holding public office, although the provision does not explicitly state whether both penalties must automatically be imposed together, making such an interpretation legally possible.
