CARTOON BY: AARON PAUL C. CARIL
EDITORIAL
Trial or survival? The Senate’s test in the Duterte impeachment
A closed-door pre-trial conference should have been a procedural step. Instead, it has become an early measure of whether the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte will be judged by evidence or swallowed by politics. Defense counsel Michael Poa described the proceedings as a “normal process” meant to stipulate facts, narrow the issues, and prepare evidence for trial. Prosecutors have cast the matter differently. Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan earlier branded the Vice President’s answer to the Articles of Impeachment a “non-answer,” arguing that it failed to directly confront the allegations. In that contrast lies the country’s deeper anxiety: whether this is still a constitutional reckoning, or already a political struggle for survival before the trial has even begun.
That dilemma has only deepened because of the Senate’s sudden change in leadership. What might have been dismissed in quieter times as an internal reorganization instead took place on the eve of a nationally watched impeachment trial. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian was formally elected Senate President after Senator Joel Villanueva joined the bloc backing the change, providing the crucial 13th vote. Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s earlier participation in the June 3 session also helped the emerging majority establish quorum and reorganize the chamber. Reports have described the shift as the end of a monthlong leadership crisis, but its timing inevitably invites scrutiny. When the body that will sit as an impeachment court is itself unsettled by shifting alliances, the public naturally asks whether the trial will be insulated from politics or shaped by it.
The broader atmosphere has not helped. Senator Jinggoy Estrada was jailed after voluntarily surrendering in connection with a non-bailable plunder case tied to the flood-control controversy, after earlier posting bail in a separate graft case. The same controversy has implicated public works officials and intensified public attention on alleged kickbacks in government infrastructure projects. At the same time, reports involving Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and the International Criminal Court have added to the sense of pressure around Duterte-aligned figures, while Justice Secretary statements have publicly denied the existence of an ICC warrant for Senator Christopher “Bong” Go. In this climate, even rumors can acquire political weight. That is precisely why public institutions must be careful: unverified claims should not be allowed to substitute for evidence, but neither can confirmed legal actions be viewed in isolation from the political moment in which they occur.
This is where the flood-control scandal becomes more than a corruption story. It has become a test of whether accountability will be pursued evenly, regardless of faction, loyalty, or usefulness to those in power. The state has every duty to investigate anomalous public works projects and prosecute those responsible. But that duty loses credibility when citizens begin to suspect that investigations move faster against some political actors than others. The Senate Blue Ribbon hearings, the arrest warrants, and the committee reshuffles have all unfolded amid a larger struggle for control of the chamber. The danger is not that powerful officials are being investigated; the danger is that the public may come to believe investigations are being timed, framed, or prioritized according to political convenience.
Concerns about credibility are also reflected in public opinion, though the picture is mixed and must be stated carefully. Some surveys have shown many Filipinos want the Vice President to answer the allegations through the impeachment process, while other polling has found significant disagreement with the filing of the impeachment complaint itself. What is consistent is not unanimity on guilt or innocence, but public unease over whether institutions will act independently. That unease becomes sharper when legal thresholds are debated in political terms. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of all members of the Senate to convict in an impeachment trial. Any attempt to reinterpret that requirement around absences, abstentions, or vacancies would invite serious constitutional controversy and could weaken public trust in the verdict, whatever the outcome.
This is why the Senate’s role is pivotal. The trial must demonstrate fairness, independence, and fidelity to constitutional limits. It must show that accountability is not a weapon for settling political scores, but a solemn process for protecting the public interest. Filipinos do not need another spectacle of rival camps measuring strength; they need institutions that can rise above factional pressure and decide on the basis of evidence. If this impeachment is to have meaning, it must answer the question at the heart of the moment: is the Vice President truly being tried, or is a faltering political order trying to save itself? The only acceptable answer is one reached through law, transparency, and the public good. Anything less will not merely weaken the verdict; it will deepen the public’s suspicion that power, not justice, had the final word.