THE Senate convened as an impeachment court on May 18 after the House of Representatives transmitted to the upper chamber the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.
It should be pointed out, however, that convening as an impeachment court does not indicate the immediate start of the trial. The Senate must be given time to prepare for the trial.
There will first be a period to allow the prosecution and defense to submit their pleadings, and a pre-trial will be held for the submission of evidence.
In fact, under the Constitution, the Senate is not held to a specific timeline to begin the trial period, and is instead supposed to hold the trial “within a reasonable time,” according to the Supreme Court.
While the Senate’s role as the impeachment tribunal is Constitutionally mandated, the manner in which it assumes this role often reflects deeper political currents.
The fact that no leadership shake-up occurred despite strident clamor from certain sectors suggests that the upper chamber wants to project unity and continuity, avoiding the perception of factional maneuvering at a time when national attention is focused on the trial of Vice President Duterte.
The readiness of the Senate to proceed with the trial highlights the gravity of the charges against Duterte and the urgency with which the political system is treating them.
Allegations of misuse of confidential funds, bribery, unexplained wealth, and destabilization plots, including the shocking claim of an assassination plot against President Marcos Jr., are not only legal matters but also touch on the stability of the political order.
At the same time, the trial’s commencement opens a new phase of political contestation.
Duterte’s allies will frame the impeachment court as an arena for political persecution, potentially rallying support in Mindanao and among her loyal base.
For Marcos Jr. and his allies, it is an opportunity to present themselves as defenders of transparency and accountability.
The Senate’s conduct will therefore be scrutinized not only for legal rigor but also for political fairness, with its reputation as an independent institution on the line.
While impeachment trials are inherently political, the fact that the process is unfolding within the prescribed institutional framework, rather than through extrajudicial means, reinforces the role of Congress as a check on executive power.
If the trial is perceived as a mere political weapon, it could erode trust in institutions; but if it is seen as transparent and evidence-based, it could strengthen democratic accountability.
The Senate’s decision to proceed with the impeachment trial of Duterte conveys a message of institutional continuity.
At the same time, it reflects both the intensity of the Marcos–Duterte rivalry and the willingness of the political system to address allegations against a sitting Vice President through Constitutional channels.
The trial, now poised to start, will be a defining test of Philippine democracy and its ability to balance institutional integrity, political rivalry and accountability,
