What are the Implications of the Impeachment Case against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte?

In the Philippines, impeachment is fundamentally a political process rather than a purely legal proceeding. While it may involve legal arguments and principles, its essence lies in the political will and maneuvering of those who control the legislature - both houses, the House of Representatives (HOR), and the Senate. This dynamic reflects both the design of the impeachment process under the 1987 Constitution and the broader political realities of the country's ever-backward politics.

Note that the House of Representatives impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte carries significant political and legal implications for the Philippines. Since the HOR approved the articles of impeachment, the process moves to the Senate, which conducts a trial to determine VP Duterte’s guilt or innocence. A conviction in the Senate would result in Duterte's removal from office and her possible/potential impending lifetime disqualification from holding any public office.

Impeachment as a Political Process:

The Philippine Constitution provides that key high-ranking officials, such as the President and Vice President, can only be removed from office through impeachment. This process is handled by the House of Representatives and the Senate, both political bodies dominated by elected officials with their own political affiliations, interests, and allegiances.

The Role of the House of Representatives:

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives, where at least one member must endorse an impeachment complaint. If the House Committee on Justice finds the complaint sufficient in form and substance, it is deliberated and voted upon. A one-third vote of all House members is needed to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Given the highly partisan nature of Philippine politics, the decision to move forward with impeachment often depends on the political alignment of the HOR majority rather than on the legal merits of the complaint. Suppose the sitting president or a powerful political bloc controls the majority in the House. In that case, an impeachment complaint can be easily dismissed, regardless of the strength of the case, or can easily be passed no matter how wasted it is for lack of substance, proper documentary evidence, and merits. This is the crux and the irony of the kind of partisan, patronage, and personality-based politics in the Philippines.

The Senate as an Impeachment Court:

Once the articles of impeachment reach the Senate, the senators act as judges. However, their votes are often influenced by their political interests, party affiliations, and public perception rather than purely legal arguments. The required two-thirds vote (16 out of 24 senators) to convict means that political calculations, such as alliances, public sentiment, and electoral implications, play a decisive role.

If an impeachment move against Vice President Sara Duterte progresses to trial, the impeachment court would be composed of the Senate of the Philippines, with all 24 senators acting as judges.

Composition of the Impeachment Court:

Presiding Officer: If the impeached official is the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. However, in the case of the Vice President, the Senate President serves as the presiding officer. Senators as Judges: All 24 senators serve as jurors in the impeachment trial. A two-thirds vote (16 out of 24 senators) is required for conviction and removal from office. House of Representatives as Prosecutors.

Impeachment as a Tool for Political Power:

Since impeachment in the Philippines is more political than legal, the outcome will largely depend on the composition of the Senate and their political alignments. Because Philippine politicians ultimately decide impeachment, it often becomes a weapon wielded by the ruling administration against its opponents or a shield used to protect allies. The process is not always about accountability but about consolidating or weakening power.

Conclusion:

In theory, impeachment in the Philippines serves as a constitutional safeguard against abuse of power. In practice, however, it is dictated by political interests rather than legal merits. The fate of an impeached official is often determined by shifting alliances, public sentiment, and the calculations of those in power rather than by the strength of the evidence against them. This reality makes impeachment more of a political exercise than a true legal proceeding.

I hope the Filipino public will be able to weigh things decisively and with the country's interes

t at heart!