When the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, many believed it would mark a defining test of the Senate’s role as the nation’s constitutional check. Instead, it has exposed a troubling paradox: how can an institution act as an impartial impeachment court when some of its members are already behaving like a defense choir?
In principle, the Senate transforms into a court of law during impeachment trials, with each senator acting as a judge, duty-bound to weigh evidence, uphold the Constitution, and set aside political allegiances. But in the case of VP Duterte, several senators have already strayed far from this mandate: publicly defending her, dismissing the process as political harassment, and aligning themselves with her cause well before any evidence is formally presented.
Let’s not mince words: when your judges sound like part of the defense team, can you still call it a fair trial?
The Bench Is Tipping
Senators are not expected to be blank slates but they are expected to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Recent statements by senator-judges in favor of the Vice President, citing her “popularity,” “mandate,” and “commitment to public service”, do not just reveal political preference. They signal pre-judgment. And in an impeachment court, that is poison.
The impeachment process is not a popularity contest. It is a legal and constitutional remedy. But the Senate’s early moves, delays in convening, premature statements, and visible discomfort in even taking up the matter, paint a picture of a chamber in political retreat, not in judicial readiness.
And when one senator claims the trial will “waste time,” while another defends the accused in media appearances, it not only undermines the presumption of fairness; it taints the very institution they claim to protect.
The Crisis of Credibility
This is not the Senate’s first rodeo. But the stakes today are unique: a sitting Vice President from a powerful dynasty facing accountability, amid the ruins of a fractured Marcos-Duterte alliance. Many senators owe political debts to both camps. Others are calculating their 2028 ambitions. The result? Paralysis dressed up as process.
Even the delay in convening the impeachment court is a political decision disguised as procedural discretion. Behind it is the fear of choosing a side too soon, of antagonizing either a sitting President or a formidable political brand.
But delay is not neutrality. It is complicity.
The longer the Senate stalls, the more it erodes its image as a constitutional safeguard. It feeds public cynicism that accountability is selectively applied and that loyalty, not law, is the true rule in Philippine politics.
When Judges Break the Gavel
The larger tragedy here is what this impeachment spectacle reveals about our institutions. The Senate, once seen as a chamber of sober reflection and moral courage, is being recast as a venue for partisan posturing. The impeachment court is becoming performative, not judicial.
If some senators want to defend VP Duterte, they are free to do so as politicians. But they must recuse themselves as judges. You cannot be both advocate and adjudicator in the same case.
What the Senate Must Do
The Senate must either proceed with the impeachment trial or explain, clearly and constitutionally, why it will not. What it must not do is pretend to deliberate while already casting judgment through press releases and side comments.
If the charges are baseless, let due process clear the Vice President. If they have merit, let the evidence speak. But allowing senators to turn the trial into a loyalty parade is a betrayal not just of the Constitution, but of the very idea that justice should be blind.
At this point, we are no longer just asking if the Vice President will be impeached. We are asking if the Senate still knows how to act as a court.
And if it doesn’t, then maybe it’s not just the Vice President on trial.
Maybe it’s the Republic itself.
