There are moments in public life when leadership is not about seizing the gavel, but about knowing when to pass it. Senate President Win Gatchalian has faced criticism from some quarters for allowing Senator Chiz Escudero to preside over the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The objections, primarily from the minority bloc led by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, center on a constitutional argument that the Senate President should occupy the chair. However, this position rests on a flawed reading of the law. Gatchalian’s decision is not a failure of leadership; it is a masterclass in it, demonstrating a commitment to due process, institutional integrity, and the rule of law.
The core of the issue lies in a simple, crucial detail often overlooked by the Vice President’s defenders. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Chief Justice is mandated to preside only when the President is on trial. The text is silent on who should preside over the impeachment of other officials, such as the Vice President. This is not a loophole but an intentional delegation of authority to the Senate to determine its own procedures. The Constitution grants the Senate the power to promulgate its rules on impeachment, a power it has fully exercised.
The Senate did not just stumble into this decision. On June 3, 2026, the Senate formally adopted an amendment to its impeachment rules. The new rule explicitly states that the Senate President shall preside ‘unless the Senate, by a majority vote of the members present, elects another senator as the presiding officer.’
This is a clear, democratic, and constitutionally sound procedure. When Senator Escudero was elected by a 12-8 vote on the trial’s opening day, it was not a usurpation of power but a legitimate exercise of the Senate’s rule-making authority. The process was followed to the letter, and Gatchalian honored the will of the majority.
This leads to the crucial distinction between a constitutional requirement and a historical precedent. The Cayetano bloc cited historical records to argue that the Senate President must preside. However, historical precedent is not the same as constitutional mandate. The framers of the Constitution were explicit in their intent, deliberately isolating the rule for a presidential impeachment to distinguish it from all others.
Finally, Gatchalian’s decision must be viewed in light of practical statesmanship. An impeachment trial is a grave, legal proceeding that demands a presiding officer with a firm grasp of jurisprudence and procedure. Senator Escudero, a lawyer and a former Senate President, possesses exactly that background . By allowing the process to elect Escudero, Gatchalian demonstrated a selfless desire to ensure the trial is conducted with the necessary legal expertise and stability. As Senator Panfilo Lacson explained, the presiding officer should have ‘the basic knowledge of the law, the rules of court, and evidence’. Gatchalian, who is not a lawyer, placed the competence and integrity of the proceedings above his personal position.
In the final analysis, Senator Win Gatchalian’s actions were not those of a leader shirking his duty, but of one fulfilling it in the truest sense. He respected the clear letter of the Constitution, honored the amended rules of the Senate, and prioritized the integrity of the trial process over political expediency. By allowing Senator Chiz Escudero to take the helm, Gatchalian upheld the rule of law and set a precedent for principled, institutional leadership that future Senate Presidents would do well to follow.
As our senators serve as impeachment judges, I pray that each of them will be guided by what is right and the light of justice.
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.