What began as another episode in the Marcos-Duterte power struggle has now descended into scenes unworthy of our highest legislative body. While the leadership coup and installation of a new Senate President was swift and calculated, the violence that erupted within the hallowed halls of the Senate was chaotic. The shootout made global headlines and overshadowed the positives from the Philippine-hosted ASEAN meetings in Cebu.

On 13 May, Senate Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms personnel discharged gunshots claiming that they had foiled an uncoordinated attempt by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to enter the Senate premises presumably to serve an ICC arrest warrant on Senator Bato dela Rosa. 

Reports of a lockdown, warning shots, and a tense standoff between the Senate security and law enforcement agents painted a picture of an institutional breakdown that shocked the nation. There were no injuries to human life and limb — just a considerable erosion of the public’s confidence in the Senate as an institution. 

There was no confirmation yet as to what really transpired that prompted shots to be fired. But there was nothing to indicate that the Senate was under siege that evening. The confirmation of the presence of NBI agents in the adjacent GSIS building did not on its own mean they were there to attack the Senate. 

If law enforcement agencies meant to arrest a sitting senator (and former PNP chief) does it make sense to simply send 20 NBI agents equipped with some basic tactical training? Even assuming the NBI was there to serve the ICC warrant of arrest on Senator Dela Rosa, were the Senate security personnel well within their rights to shoot at them? What legal authority do security personnel have to prevent legitimate law enforcement entry into a public government building? Something does not add up. 

Just the same, what was looking like a well-orchestrated and strategically timed filing of complaints leading to the impeachment trial (presumably to preemptively strike and neutralize a powerful 2028 contender) took an unexpected turn with the reappearance of Senator Dela Rosa whose vote was crucial to unseating the former Senate President and the administration-allied majority.

Since the 23 senators forthwith took their oaths as judges, many believe the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte will now take center stage. But the shifting of alliances and the new leadership of the powerful Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has brought with it the possibility of resuming the flood control hearings and new plot twists to the escalating political zarzuela. 

These moves appear to be part of a carefully concocted scheme to leverage the threat of unraveling layers of corruption likely leading to the Palace vis-à-vis the impeachment proceedings against Duterte. 

As the impeachment proceedings unfold, the pattern is disturbingly familiar: impeachment complaints dusted off for political payback and leadership ousters choreographed for control. 

The Constitution’s safeguards are being tested — and bent — to serve personal and factional survival. Will the upper chamber rise above the fray and conduct a fair trial, or will it become another arena for the all-out war between the Marcos and Duterte camps? 

Meanwhile, our institutions remain fragile. The Filipino people deserve better than this endless cycle of political drama. Public officials sworn to uphold the law appear more invested in settling scores than addressing the people’s urgent needs: inflation, agriculture woes, and basic governance failures. 

Public office is a public trust — not a tool for revenge nor for perpetuating a dynastic political enterprise.