Objecting to boredom
Perhaps it is time for the Senate to take control of its own process. Less courtroom theater. Fewer technical entanglements. More substance. More clarity. More common sense.
Daily TribunePerhaps it is time for the Senate to take control of its own process. Less courtroom theater. Fewer technical entanglements. More substance. More clarity. More common sense.
The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has been going on for two weeks, and one comment keeps coming up from Filipinos trying to follow it: It is slow, technical, and, sorry to say, boring.
That may sound shallow. This is, after all, a constitutional process involving the possible removal and disqualification of the second highest official of the land. It should be serious. It should be careful. It should respect the rights of both sides.
But serious does not have to mean tedious. Careful does not have to mean incomprehensible. And due process does not require turning the Senate into a trial court cosplay convention.
The problem is that the proceedings, especially because of the approach taken by the defense, have increasingly been bogged down by courtroom technicalities. On the second day alone, defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa objected, by one count, 47 times during the prosecution’s presentation. Forty-seven. And what was the subject of all this procedural combat? The now infamous video of Sara Duterte threatening the President, the First Lady, and then Speaker Martin Romualdez.
In other words, a video that millions of Filipinos had already seen.
Of course, the defense is entitled to object. No one is saying the Vice President should be railroaded. No one is saying evidence should be accepted blindly, or that the prosecution should be allowed to do whatever it wants. But there is a difference between protecting rights and burying the truth under a pile of technical objections.
That distinction matters.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to conduct an impeachment trial exactly like an ordinary criminal or civil case. The Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. It is not a Regional Trial Court. It is not bound to pretend that senator-judges are robed trial judges, or that the public must sit through endless “Objection, Your Honor” exchanges just to establish what everyone already knows exists.
Most senators are not lawyers. Most citizens watching are not lawyers either. If the ultimate purpose is to get at the truth, the process should help reveal it, not obscure it. The country should not need a remedial law review to understand whether an impeachable official threatened to have people killed, misused public funds, or betrayed public trust.
Impeachment is not just a legal proceeding. It is a constitutional mechanism for political accountability. That means it must be fair, yes. But it must also be comprehensible to the public in whose name the case is being tried. A trial that citizens struggle to follow does not strengthen public trust. It weakens it.
So perhaps it is time for the Senate to take control of its own process. Less courtroom theater. Fewer technical entanglements. More substance. More clarity. More common sense.
Because at the end of this trial, the question will not be whether every objection was artfully phrased. The question will be whether the Senate had the courage to face the evidence and answer this fundamental question: Is VP Sara Duterte still fit to hold public office?
