“The real test now is whether the Senate can apply the same discipline to the country’s more pressing concerns”
THE impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte had all the makings of another political spectacle.
The ingredients were there: clashing personalities, high stakes, and an audience ready for a fight. The Senate could have easily been dragged into another season of defensive warfare, wasting valuable time and political capital.
But when the Supreme Court ruled that the complaint failed to meet the Constitutional standard, the chamber was faced with a choice: Would it keep the match going for the sake of drama, or would it close this chapter in a way that upheld the law?
The Senate’s decision to archive the case was the latter. And for all the criticism it drew, it was the one move that kept the institution on the right side of the Constitution.
Following the ruling, not the noise
As Senator Alan Peter Cayetano pointed out, the Supreme Court had made it clear: the case was void from the start because it breached the one-year ban and bypassed due process.
The Court did not just dismiss the complaint; it also provided a detailed blueprint for how a valid impeachment case must be filed and prosecuted in the future.
This, Cayetano argued, is where the Senate’s energy should now be directed. The ruling provides a clear path for ensuring accountability that actually holds up in court, rather than bending the rules just to score political points.
Measured leadership in a divided chamber
Senate President Francis Escudero navigated this situation with deliberate care.
An outright dismissal could have been seen as an abdication of the Senate’s Constitutional duty to try impeachment cases.
Yet, keeping it on the table would have directly contradicted the Supreme Court’s order.
The decision to archive the case respected both the judiciary’s decision and the Senate’s own mandate.
The chamber wasn’t unified in its approach.
Senators Vicente Sotto III, Risa Hontiveros, Francisco Pangilinan, and Paolo Benigno Aquino IV favored keeping the case pending.
Senator Panfilo Lacson abstained, highlighting the need for caution, and even former Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, now in the minority, provided a balanced take by saying the SC ruling should be respected.
Despite these differences, the majority ultimately agreed that the Court’s decision could not be ignored.
Beyond the case at hand
Some will inevitably view this outcome as a political shield for the Vice President.
However, for those senators who backed the move, the decision was about safeguarding the integrity of the process itself.
When rules are upheld – even against intense political pressure – institutions gain credibility.
The real test now is whether the Senate can apply the same discipline to the country’s more pressing concerns.
Will they focus on critical issues like corruption, disaster preparedness, and improving basic services, or will they allow themselves to be consumed by political battles that ultimately distract from the public good?
What happened on Aug. 6 showed the Senate chose to defend the law over the lure of another endless fight. Let’s hope that decision is a sign of what’s to come.
(The author is a freelance writer who writes orations for necrological services as well as theses and dissertations for graduate students.)
