The Tamesis
May 18, 2026
Manila – The House of Representatives has fulfilled its constitutional duty; an institutional farce is unfolding in the Senate.
Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted 257-25 to transfer the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the Senate, placing the accountability process in the hands of the so-called upper chamber, which now meets as an impeachment court under the 1987 Constitution.
But today, May 18, as the Senate doors swing open for this historic trial, the air within its stately halls remains thick with tension and unexpected hilarity brought on by the resident clown. Before the first gavel fell and the justices donned their robes, the Senate descended into a theater of the absurd.
The sudden ouster of Senate President Sen. Vicente Sotto III and his replacement by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano in a strategic coup cast a surreal pall over the entire process. This leadership change, orchestrated by allies of the vice president, smacks of preemption to protect the chancellor from justice.
Or, more likely, to save his own neck.
bastion of democracy
The impact was compounded by the instability of Senator Ronald “Bato” de la Rosa. After six months in hiding to evade an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant, he reappeared before the Senate plenary, leading to a night of terror with shots fired, but hours later the fugitive senator disappeared again with the help of former action star and criminal Senator Robin Hood Padilla.
Whether these dramas are genuine security breaches or staged drama, the result is the same: The Senate’s reputation as a bastion of democracy is in flames.
There is a fine line between impeachment as a political process and a political tool, and our senators appear to have crossed it. Never mind that chambers cannot serve as both an impartial jury and a refuge for wanted criminals.
However, even this furor cannot prevent the Senate from convening an impeachment court, as any delay would be a dereliction of duty, and the Constitution does not wait for political overtones to turn favorable.
Legal professionals have issued such reminders. “We … wish to remind senators that refusing to serve as a court of impeachment is not a constitutional option,” said a statement signed by retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuña, San Beda University School of Law Dean Lancilio Aquino and San Beda Law Professor Antonio Lavina.
The prospect of self-judgment
That’s the problem. Several senators face trials for their involvement in the flood control scandal. It’s no surprise or coincidence that the same people now control the chamber.
But first things first. Duterte’s trial must begin immediately and focus only on cold, hard evidence. The articles detailed a systematic betrayal of the public trust: the suspicious liquidation of P500 million in confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President and P112.5 million in confidential funds from the Department of Education; an unexplained accumulation of wealth that dwarfed her declared net worth; and alleged inflammatory threats against President Marcos and his family.
As her allies scramble to protect her in Manila, Duterte travels the world, most recently in the Netherlands to visit her father, who is detained by the International Criminal Court. In an interview in The Hague, she brushed off the actions of her Senate allies and put the blame on the president: “What you see in our country is a gross abuse of power,” she said.
But Duterte’s comments in Europe have no sway at home.
Recent polls show the seriousness of the accusations against Duterte are eroding her support. As the 2028 election approaches, she must recognize that the notoriety of being the first vice president in history to be impeached twice is a stain that will be difficult to wash away.
ruthless judge
It is time for Duterte to return and defend himself in the most appropriate forum – the Court of Impeachment. She must take this trial seriously, whether the senators and judges are friendly or unfriendly.
People have long sought answers to questions about her use of public funds, the testimony of those “middlemen” and reports of her bank transactions. To avoid facing this public inquiry would be to confirm the House’s charge that she has made herself a constitutional pariah.
The Senate stands at a crossroads: It may choose to be an impartial arbiter or a biased court. But its members would do well to remember that history is an unforgiving judge.
Any senator who shrinks from holding public officials accountable would be foolish to ignore Jose Rizal’s warning in “Noli Me Tangere”: “Cowardice, properly understood, begins with selfishness and ends with shame.”
It is not too late for the Senate to redeem its honor, or what little precious honor it has left.
