VP trial: Send out the clowns
The House of Representatives has performed its constitutional duty; the Senate is performing an institutional farce.
By a resounding 257-25 vote, the House transmitted the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the Senate last Wednesday, placing the accountability process in the hands of the so-called upper chamber, now bound by the 1987 Constitution to convene as an impeachment court.
But as the doors of the Senate swing open for this historic trial today, May 18, the air within its august halls remains thick with tension and accidental hilarity, brought to you by the clowns in residence. Before the first gavel has even fallen and the judges have donned their robes, the Senate has descended into a theater of the absurd.
The sudden ouster of Senate President Sen. Vicente Sotto III, replaced by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano in a strategic coup, casts a surreal shadow over the proceedings. This leadership change, orchestrated by the Vice President’s allies, reeks of a preemptive strike to shield a principal from the dispensation of justice.
Or more likely, to save their own necks.
Bastion of democracy
Compounding the fallout is the volatile situation of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa. His resurfacing on the Senate plenary floor, after six months in hiding to evade the service of a warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC), led to a night of terror where shots were fired, only for the fugitive senator to disappear again hours later, with the help of the former action star and convict, Sen. Robinhood Padilla.
Whether these dramatics are a genuine security breach or a choreographed play, the result is the same: the Senate’s reputation as a bastion of democracy is going up in flames.
There’s a fine line between impeachment as a political process and as a tool for politics, and it seems our senators have crossed it. Never mind that the chamber cannot function as an impartial jury and a sanctuary for wanted men at the same time.
Yet even this brouhaha must not stop the Senate from forming an impeachment court, for any delay would be a dereliction of duty, and the Constitution does not wait for political colors to turn favorable.
Legal luminaries have issued such a reminder. “We … wish to remind the Senators that refusing to sit as a Court of Impeachment is not a constitutional option,” according to a statement signed by retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, San Beda University Graduate School of Law dean Ranhilio Aquino, and San Beda law professor Antonio La Viña, among others.
Prospect of their own trial
And there’s the rub. Some senators are facing the prospect of their own trial, having been implicated in the flood control scandal. It’s no surprise or coincidence the same people are now in control of the chamber.
But first things first. The trial of Duterte must start forthwith and focus on nothing but the cold, hard evidence. The articles detail a systematic betrayal of public trust: the suspicious liquidation of P500 million in confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President and P112.5 million from the Department of Education; the amassing of unexplained wealth that dwarfs her declared net worth; and allegedly seditious threats against President Marcos and his family.
As her allies scramble to protect her in Manila, Duterte travels the world, most recently seen in the Netherlands, visiting her father in ICC custody. Interviewed in The Hague, she washed her hands off the actions of her Senate allies and pinned the blame on the President: “What you’re witnessing in our country is grave abuse of power,” she said.
But Duterte’s words in Europe carry no weight back home.
Recent polls suggest that the gravity of the allegations against Duterte is chipping away at her popularity. As the 2028 elections approach, she must recognize that the notoriety of being the first VP in history to be impeached twice is a stain that won’t be washed away easily.
An unforgiving judge
It is time for Duterte to return and defend herself in the most appropriate forum–an impeachment court. She must take this trial seriously, however friendly or unfriendly the senator-judges turn out to be.
The people are due long-sought answers to questions regarding her use of public funds, those “bagman” testimonies and reports of her bank transactions. To shirk from facing this public inquiry is to confirm the House’s indictment: that she has rendered herself an outcast to the Constitution.
The Senate stands at a crossroads: It may choose to be a fair-minded arbiter or a biased tribunal. But its members will do well to remember that history is an unforgiving judge.
Any senator who cowers from their obligation to hold public officials to account would be foolish to ignore Jose Rizal’s warning in Noli Me Tangere: “Cowardice rightly understood begins with selfishness and ends with shame.”
It’s not too late for the Senate to redeem its honor, or what precious little remains of it.
