ON June 10, the Senate formally convened as an impeachment court, with senators taking their oaths as jurors. However, instead of moving forward with the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Senate voted 18 to 5 to return the case to the House for “certification of constitutional compliance,” a procedural move that effectively stalled the proceedings. This decision provoked immediate backlash from those advocating for the swift continuation of the trial. Critics denounced it as a “constitutional betrayal” and a troubling breach of democratic duty, arguing that the Senate had already assumed jurisdiction when it issued a formal summons to the vice president.
Hence, the Senate now stands at a critical junction. While it retains the constitutional mandate to ensure fairness and uphold due process, its credibility is under fire. Is it acting as a neutral arbiter, cautious in its adherence to legal procedure? Or will it be manipulated as a political accessory? How the Senate proceeds will have far-reaching consequences. A fair and impartial proceeding could restore public faith in constitutional processes and checks and balances. But suppose the process is seen as a mere extension of political vendetta or political power play, subservient to the political interests of those in power; in that case, it will further delegitimize the system.
In stark contrast, Sara Duterte’s supporters and political allies welcomed the Senate’s “return to sender” decision, interpreting it as a procedural check on what they view as a politically motivated and constitutionally questionable initiative.
Meanwhile, House prosecutors responded swiftly and assertively. They rejected the Senate’s premise, emphasizing that the House had already fulfilled its constitutional role by approving the articles of impeachment. They signaled their firm intention to resume the process once the Senate reengaged. To reinforce this stance, on June 11, the House unanimously issued a formal certification affirming that the impeachment articles against the vice president fully comply with the requirements of the 1987 Constitution. This move served not only as a rebuttal to the Senate’s procedural concerns but also as a clear political signal: the lower chamber is determined to push forward with the impeachment trial.
Stakes and consequences
The vice president’s impeachment trial is not merely a procedural exercise; it is a high-stakes political game with far-reaching implications for the future of Philippine governance, the 2028 presidential elections and the fragile democratic institutions currently under stress.
Under the 1987 Constitution, a conviction in an impeachment trial requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With 24 senators, this means at least 16 votes are needed for a guilty verdict. The vote count will ultimately reflect not only legal interpretation but also loyalty dynamics, political calculations and strategic ambition among senators.
If Sara Duterte is convicted, she potentially could face permanent disqualification from holding any public office, a political career-ending judgment. This would effectively eliminate her from the 2028 presidential race, radically redrawing the political battlefield, clearing a major obstacle for the Marcos-Romualdez camp and allowing it to tighten its grip on power and succession planning. Furthermore, suppose Romualdez-Marcos’ camp succeeds in unseating Sara Duterte; in that case, it will also symbolically mark the demise of Duterte-era populism, opening the way for a Romualdez-Marcos political dynastic monopoly. However, such an outcome risks inflaming partisan divisions and polarizing an already fractured electorate.
A conviction could also backfire, galvanizing Sara Duterte’s support base, framing her as a victim, a martyr of political persecution and laying the groundwork for a political revival, perhaps led by another Duterte figure or an ally in the next electoral cycle. However, if Sara Duterte survives this political siege, it would preserve her potential presidential bid, reenergize the Duterte bloc and reassert its political relevance, especially as the 2028 presidential election looms. Her acquittal will reinvigorate Duterte-aligned factions.
Tensions and political calculations
But one thing, though, the impeachment is widely viewed as a political shield, aimed at undermining Sara Duterte’s political future and diminishing the Duterte political bloc. Many broadly view it as a political offensive by the Marcos-Romualdez camp to neutralize a potent challenger and consolidate power ahead of the 2028 presidential elections. Beneath the legalistic surface of this controversy lies a more profound battle: the bitter collapse of the Marcos-Duterte alliance forged in the run-up to the May 2022 presidential elections under the banner, “UniTeam.” For the Marcos camp, removing Sara Duterte would eliminate a key rival and mark a symbolic break from the Duterte legacy. For the Duterte bloc, Sara’s impeachment is not just a legal fight; it’s an existential struggle for political survival.
No doubt, the impending impeachment trial of the vice president is more than just a legal proceeding; it is a microcosm of the Philippines’ struggle between dynastic dominance and democratic aspiration. This political spectacle, unlike the past impeachments of President Joseph Estrada and Chief Justice Renato Corona, is not just about corruption or judicial accountability; it is a full-blown clash between two of the most potent political blocs/families in the country, the Dutertes and the Romualdez-Marcoses.
Also, the nature and scope of this impeachment trial reflect deeper political undercurrents than previous impeachments. Estrada’s case centered on direct corruption and betrayal of public trust amid soaring public outrage. Corona’s was about judicial integrity and the transparency of the Supreme Court. Sara Duterte’s case, however, is laced with allegations that blur the line between accusations and political strategy or plots of political assassination/crucifixion of the vice president. These echo the broader battles over who controls the levers of power.
Conclusion
In sum, this impeachment is not just another chapter in the Philippines’ long history of political drama. It is a defining moment. It lays bare the vulnerabilities of a democracy that is still hostage to familial dominance and political interests of those in power, where good governance, genuine democracy and the Filipinos’ true interests and welfare are often secondary to games of thrones. Whether it ends in vindication or conviction, the Sara Duterte impeachment trial is shaping up to be a litmus test for the resilience of the country’s democratic institutions, its leaders’ sincerity and the Filipino people’s political maturity.
Additionally, a fair and transparent acquittal could reaffirm democratic resilience and strengthen legal norms. However, a conviction perceived as politically engineered could deepen public cynicism, further entrench dynastic politics and cast doubt on the integrity of constitutional processes. In short, this is a pivotal moment. The stakes are not only about one woman’s political future; they are about the country’s direction, institutional credibility and whether the rule of law can prevail over power plays, factionalism and vendetta.
Also, the outcome, whether acquittal or conviction, will shape Sara Duterte’s political future trajectory, the institutional credibility of the Senate and the Republic’s democratic health. In a Philippine democracy defined by dynastic gamesmanship and performative checks and balances, the nation now watches whether truth, fairness and the rule of law will hold, or if power play and the political interests of those currently in power once again rewrite the rules.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/06/14/opinion/columns/sara-dutertes-high-stakes-impeachment-trial-and-political-succession-in-2028/2132992
