I have followed the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte since the proceedings began. I have arranged my time around the Senate feed, convinced that something important was unfolding, something that would clarify where we stand as a nation that claims to govern itself through laws rather than loyalties.
Instead, I find myself more confused than when I started.
The confusion began with arithmetic. When four amici curiae-legal friends of the court-were invited to enlighten us on the voting threshold required for conviction, I expected clarity. What I got was a split decision among the very people who once sat on the highest bench in the land. Three former Chief Justices-Artemio Panganiban, Hilario Davide Jr. and Reynato Puno-argued for what they called a ‘commonsensical’ reading of the Constitution. The two-thirds vote for conviction, they suggested, should be calculated based on participating senator-judges, not the full membership of the chamber. If senators are absent, detained, or otherwise disengaged, the mathematics should adjust accordingly.
Then came former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, a framer of the Constitution itself, who stood before the Senate and said: ‘All the Members of the Senate,’ he reminded everyone, reading the constitutional text as written. Sixteen votes. Fixed. Immutable. Regardless of who shows up to work.
I am not a lawyer. I am merely a citizen trying to understand the rules by which my country decides whether a Vice President stays or goes. And I find it unsettling that even the experts-the interpreters of our fundamental law-cannot agree on what a sentence means. If they are confused, or at least in genuine disagreement, what chance do the rest of us have?
But Azcuna said something more important than fractions. He stated that whether a senator-judge who missed or did not fully participate in the proceedings can still cast a final vote is an internal matter for the Senate to decide according to its own rules. But the deeper obligation-the duty to decide based on evidence rather than allegiance- that is non-negotiable. Simply put, the evidence alone must dictate the decision.
This issue is particularly concerning because it contrasts rigorous constitutional debate within the Senate chambers against the overt partisanship displayed outside by the senator-judges themselves.
Senator Robin Padilla stood before cameras on June 9, 2025, and declared with what I can only describe as theatrical bravado: ‘Kahit sunugin mo ako dito, mangangamoy Rodrigo Roa Duterte ako.’ This was a declaration of allegiance, proud and absolute, broadcast to the nation he is sworn to judge fairly.
The timing matters. Padilla made this declaration after confirming he had drafted Senate Resolution No. 1371, seeking to terminate the impeachment proceedings before they could properly proceed. Let that sink in: a senator-judge, sworn to impartiality, was actively working to end the trial while simultaneously proclaiming his unwavering loyalty to the family of the accused.
Then there is Senator Pia Cayetano and the spliced video she uploaded to social media-footage manipulated to support defense arguments about prosecutors seeking financial records. The House prosecution panel cried foul, and I understand why. How does a judge who disseminates edited material favorable to one side claim to be weighing evidence fairly? The ethics complaint against her hangs in the procedural air, likely to remain there, unanswered and unaddressed.
These are not minor irregularities. These are public declarations of prejudice, performed for cameras and constituents, as if the concept of judicial impartiality were a quaint suggestion rather than a constitutional requirement.
The Constitution makes the Senate the tribunal for impeachment trials so that high-ranking officials are judged by a body that balances political and legal judgment, rather than by ordinary courts. Senator-judges are expected to be impartial and to vote solely on the evidence presented. Partisan politics and personal allegiance have no place here. My point is simple: only impartial senator-judges should be permitted to vote.
Dr. Jesus Lim Arranza is the Chairman Emeritus of the Federation of Philippine Industries and concurrent Chairman of the Anti-Smuggling and Anti-Illicit Trade Committee.