With the upcoming impeachment trial taking over television, print, and social media news, I find myself grappling with a question that cuts to the core of democratic accountability: Can the Senate genuinely act as an impartial court of justice?
The upcoming impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has forced this question upon the nation. As the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines reminds us, the impeachment process is not merely a political exercise-it is a constitutional mechanism ‘to address offenses against the state, betrayal of public trust, and political tyranny.’
The senator as judge: A contradiction in terms?
I know of a particular case where a trial court judge recused herself to preserve the integrity of the judicial process after the defense filed a motion for her inhibition. This happened in 2018 during the trial of Senator Leila de Lima’s drug cases. Notably, in November 2018, Judge Lorna Navarro-Domingo of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 206 recused herself. While the judge denied claims of bias, she inhibited herself to show ‘good faith to all parties’ and preserve the integrity of the judicial process after the defense filed a motion for her inhibition.
The standard was exacting: justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Yet here we are, contemplating an impeachment trial where some senators have already appeared on news programs declaring their opposition to the Vice President’s impeachment before a single piece of evidence has been formally presented.
My first question to our legal luminaries is painfully straightforward: Can these senators be counted on as neutral judges?
The CBCP has appealed to the Senate ‘to abide by what the Constitution directs: to proceed with the trial and to decide the case against the Vice President by summoning witnesses, hearing testimony, and voting according to the evidence and, above all, the demands of righteousness and justice.’ But how can a senator vote ‘according to the evidence’ when they have already announced their verdict in primetime?
The inhibition question
IN our regular trial courts, the rules are clear. The Rules of Court explicitly state that a judge may be disqualified if they have expressed an opinion on the merits of the case. Once a judge shows partiality-or even the appearance of partiality-the other party can file a motion for inhibition. The judge, if they possess any measure of judicial integrity, steps aside.
The missing framework
I have searched the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission. I have read the debates of 1986 and 1987. The framers spoke eloquently about the Senate’s role as a check on executive power. They envisioned senators rising above partisanship, guided by what Commissioner Hilario Davide Jr. called ‘the higher interest of the nation.’ But did they ever imagine a scenario where senators would actively campaign against an impeachment before the trial even began?
I suspect they did not. Or perhaps they did, and they trusted that the people would elect senators of sufficient character to resist such temptations. If so, that trust is now being tested.
The CBCP statement, signed by Archbishop Gilbert Garcera, captures something essential: ‘We urge the Senators to avoid any act that may be perceived as evading their sworn duty or circumventing the requirements of the Constitution.’ The key word is perceived. Justice is not merely a matter of private conscience-it is a public performance of fairness.
When a senator declares opposition to the Vice President’s impeachment on live television, the perception of partiality becomes unavoidable. The CBCP’s appeal ‘to not delay the trial and to convene the Senate as an impeachment court at the soonest possible time’ is admirable. But speed is worthless without fairness. ‘To delay the trial is to delay justice,’ the bishops wrote, ‘for both the Filipino people and the Vice President.’ I would add: To rush a trial with prejudged senators is to pervert justice entirely.
A modest proposal
I am not a legal luminary. I am simply a citizen trying to make sense of a constitutional process that seems, from the outside, deeply flawed.
We must remain vigilant in monitoring the proceedings, but vigilance without standards is merely observation. As citizens, we are all bound to follow the law, and if we violate it, we accept the consequences as prescribed by law.
And so my question is this: If the constitution intended the Senate to be an impartial court, but some senators have already demonstrated partiality, what remedy exists? Should the Supreme Court step in, despite the political question doctrine? Or should the people themselves-vigilant, informed, demanding-become the ultimate check?