Watching the live coverage of the Senate impeachment trial of Vice-President Sara Z. Duterte has become, for many observers, a deeply dispiriting experience. The courtroom-style tactics of lawyers on both sides have contributed to a sense of frustration over the ideal that Right should prevail over Wrong. Legal maneuvering in the presentation and cross-examination of witnesses, together with what appears to some viewers as intimidation of certain witnesses by some senator-judges, has left parts of the public asking what the proceedings are truly about.

Others may see the Senate trial differently: as the story of a political figure defending her individual rights and constitutional freedoms. They argue that Duterte should be given a fair chance. Still, even by Day 9 of the trial, questions have arisen over whether the defense has concentrated mainly on technical legal issues that could lead to her exoneration.

This is the second attempt to bring impeachment complaints against Duterte to trial in the Senate. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Vice-President is among the officials who may be removed from office through impeachment, with the House of Representatives given the exclusive power to initiate the case and the Senate the sole power to try and decide it. The first attempt, in February 2025, was cut short after the Senate, then led by Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, voted 18-5 in June that year to remand the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives. On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously nullified the impeachment complaint, ruling that it was “unconstitutional” under the “one year-bar rule.” The Court said any new impeachment complaint could only be filed on or after Feb. 6, 2026.

Public reaction to the failed first impeachment trial was sharply divided. Some welcomed the outcome, others were disappointed, and many were confused. Technical legal arguments appeared to settle doubts over procedures and decisions, and the Supreme Court ultimately had the final word.

On Aug. 1, 2025, a group composed of faculty members of the University of the Philippines College of Law issued a statement expressing “grave concern with the developments in the impeachment of Vice-President Sara Z. Duterte” (law.upd.edu.ph). “We have carefully studied the Supreme Court’s decision in Duterte v. House of Representatives and the unprecedented actions that have been taken by Congress that have led us to this point,” they said. “We acknowledge the anxiety, confusion, and fears of a constitutional crisis that have arisen among the general public. Informed by the law and the constitutional and political history that we teach and study, we stand by bedrock principles of our constitutional system and warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials” (Ibid.).

The UP Law faculty statement set out three core positions.

First, on separation of powers, it emphasized that the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, while the Senate has the sole power to try them.

Second, it warned against over-judicialization, cautioning against the imposition of rigid, court-like evidentiary rules on Congress during the early stages of initiation.

Third, on public accountability, it stressed that impeachment is fundamentally a political process intended to protect the public and uncover the truth, not a standard criminal litigation.

The country is now again watching the impeachment trial of Sara Duterte. The question is whether Filipinos are again experiencing the same “anxiety, confusion, and fears of a constitutional crisis that have arisen among the general public,” as described and cautioned against by the legal experts.

On the first point, the Supreme Court is not involved in the current impeachment trial and cannot comment on it. It is now clearer that the Court should not intervene in the Senate proceedings.

On the second point, the warning against “over-judicialization” appears to be openly at issue in this second round of Senate proceedings, which is expected to run for about 102 days. The trial has become highly technical and legalistic, relying on “rigid, court-like evidentiary rules” of the kind specifically flagged by the UP Law faculty. Members of the public may find themselves lost amid legal sparring, sarcastic exchanges, and courtroom tactics as lawyers claim victories in cross-examining pressured witnesses.

“Impeachment is fundamentally a political process aimed at protecting the public and finding the truth, rather than a standard criminal litigation,” the legal experts emphasized in their third point. If impeachment is not criminal litigation, some members of the public may ask why very technical legal procedures are being used. At the impeachment trial on July 15, Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano expressed disappointment that there were only a few lawyers in the Senate (rollingstonephilippines.com, July 16). Only five of the current 24 senators are lawyers: Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Francis Escudero, Rodante Marcoleta, who has been arrested and is not serving, and Francis Pangilinan.

Escudero’s legal background has also raised questions over whether it was a key reason he was chosen to preside over the Senate impeachment trial. The public had reason to be perplexed. He was the Senate President who remanded the first impeachment complaint to the House of Representatives in 2025, a move that killed the complaint despite the overwhelming majority of congressmen who had endorsed it.

Escudero also played another role in the Senate drama. He broke an impasse when the Senate’s pro-Duterte bloc, then under Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, who was installed on May 11 after a “coup,” boycotted Senate hearings for three days from June 1 to June 3 after losing its majority. Its 13-member majority had been reduced to 11 following the arrest of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and the continued absence of Sen. Bato de la Rosa. The other side also had 11 members, producing a deadlock.

Escudero, described as a stalwart of the pro-Duterte bloc, then appeared at the Senate voluntarily, he said, to create the required quorum of 12 and to join the unanimous vote installing Sherwin Gatchalian as the new Senate President.

In a statement after the session, Escudero said the Senate impasse had become “untenable and unacceptable,” arguing that the chamber’s mandate should take precedence over factional loyalties. “This is not a political contest. I am not taking sides. I am taking a stand for the Senate. My allegiance is not to any faction, personality, group or alliance.” He said his action should not be seen as a question of “loyalty, betrayal, or choosing one group over the other, but as a question of duty to the institution” (Philstar.com, June 3).

That statement was well put. Yet it still prompts the question of why Escudero was considered for the critical role of presiding officer in the Senate impeachment trial of Sara Duterte, his erstwhile political leader.

The first day of the trial, July 6, began turbulently as senators clashed over who should preside over the proceedings. The dispute ended with Escudero’s election as presiding officer by a 12-8 vote. Senate President Gatchalian said he nominated Escudero to ensure that both the impeachment trial and the Senate’s legislative responsibilities would receive full and focused attention (mb.com.ph, July 6).

The decision left parts of the public puzzled, perplexed, and suspicious. Some asked what arrangement had been made, while critics raised conspiracy theories involving horse-trading and hostage-taking. The decision happened so quickly that the public had little choice but to accept it, even as questions persisted. Some wondered whether Escudero’s background as a lawyer made him better suited to guide a highly legalistic impeachment process shaped by skilled lawyers. Others saw his appointment as also placing him on trial, in effect, to publicly demonstrate neutrality and the absence of bias.

In a speech after his election as presiding officer, Escudero set the conviction threshold at 16 votes. This came amid legal interpretations that the Constitution’s two-thirds conviction threshold could mean 14 votes because only 21 of the 24 senators can participate in the trial (rappler.com, July 6).

Escudero’s ruling reflects Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution, which states that no person may be convicted in an impeachment trial without the concurrence of two-thirds of all Members of the Senate. Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said the constitutional requirement to convict the Vice-President remains 16 votes, even if three senators are unable to participate (politiko.com, July 10).

The same constitutional provision also limits judgment in impeachment cases to removal from office and disqualification to hold public office, while making clear that the party convicted may still be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law. That distinction is important because it separates the Senate’s accountability function from the work of criminal courts, even as both require respect for due process.

In a press briefing, Senate Impeachment Trial spokesman Regie Tongol, a lawyer, said the court recognizes public comments that the trial may appear too technical. However, he stressed that impeachment proceedings must still follow rules of evidence, procedure, and due process. He said the challenge is to balance public understanding with the rights of all parties in a formal court process (pna.gov.ph, July 10).

“The rights of all parties” inevitably raises the tension between individual rights and the common good, or the collective rights of others. The Catholic Catechism, Part III, Section II, recognizes this principle: “Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good.

“By common good is to be understood ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’ Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.”

The Senate impeachment trial court therefore carries a moral responsibility to decide with the common good foremost in mind, while also hearing the legal rights of the accused. Those rights may be defended in the proper forum, including the criminal courts that have jurisdiction over criminal matters. Rights without responsibilities weaken the moral fabric of society.

Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.

[email protected]