By Atty. Howie Calleja
Watching the recent convening of the impeachment court—amid a period marked by intense procedural debate—revealed a critical test of the Philippine Senate’s fidelity to impartiality, due process, and the Constitution itself.
While the formal swearing-in of Senate President Chiz Escudero and the subsequent seating of the senator-judges signal procedural progress, the actions and pronouncements that preceded it have cast a long shadow over the credibility of the entire process.
For example, Senator Robin Padilla was quoted on June 4 stating, “I will never abandon President Duterte,”—a declaration that reflects more than just political sympathy. Such a statement, made before the presentation of any evidence, severely compromises the expectation of judicial neutrality.
Similarly, Senator Ronald dela Rosa has publicly referred to the impeachment proceedings as a “political demolition job,” raising further concerns about pre-judgment.
The conduct of Senators Padilla, Dela Rosa, and Francis Tolentino demands close examination.
Senator Padilla’s public declarations, suggesting his readiness to share in the fate of former President Duterte, and Senator Dela Rosa’s similarly defiant rhetoric, reflect a worrying disregard for the boundaries of their constitutional role.
These are not mere expressions of opinion; they betray an active alignment with a political figure at the center of a legal proceeding they are meant to judge with neutrality.
Senator Tolentino’s attempts to obstruct the convening of the court are even more troubling. On June 5, Tolentino questioned the “validity of the trial rules” already adopted by the Senate, a move widely criticized by legal experts as a delay tactic.
The Philippine Bar Association referred to his actions as a “deliberate stalling maneuver inconsistent with the obligations of an officer of the court.” Unlike Padilla or Dela Rosa, whose lack of legal training might offer a limited explanation, Tolentino is a lawyer. His actions represent not ignorance, but a calculated effort to undermine a constitutional process. His eventual removal from the impeachment court was a necessary correction—but one that does not fully resolve the deeper issue of partisan influence seeping into a space that demands objectivity and ethical clarity.
The moment now calls for the highest standards of judicial integrity from our senator-judges. Their sworn duty requires them to apply the law fairly, examine evidence without prejudice, and set aside political allegiances in favor of the public interest.
The question is no longer whether Senators Padilla, Dela Rosa, and Tolentino understand the gravity of their roles—it is whether they are willing to honor their oath above personal loyalty. Their conduct thus far strongly suggests a prioritization of political ties over constitutional responsibility.
The principle of inhibition, rooted in ethics and voluntary self-restraint, is not a sign of weakness but a mark of respect for the rule of law. In the 2012 impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, senators were called to inhibit when prior public statements or affiliations cast doubt on their impartiality.
Then—as now—calls for recusal were not an attempt to silence, but to safeguard the institution’s credibility.
For Senators Padilla and Dela Rosa, recusal from the trial would be the clearest expression of respect for institutional integrity. If they remain, their presence will cast a long shadow over any verdict rendered, regardless of outcome.
This impeachment trial is not merely a question of one person’s guilt or innocence—it is a measure of the Senate’s moral capacity to rise above faction and protect the nation’s faith in its institutions.
Ultimately, this moment must serve as a catalyst for reform. The clear risk of political bias compromising judicial proceedings underscores the urgent need for stronger institutional safeguards—both within the Senate and across government.
Ethical guidelines must be strengthened, transparency enforced, and clear consequences established for partisan overreach.
While recent surveys have shown public satisfaction with the Senate’s performance, satisfaction alone cannot substitute for trust in its impartiality—especially in moments of constitutional gravity. What is at stake in an impeachment court is not popularity, but credibility. To preserve the integrity of our democracy, public officials must act not as partisans, but as guardians of the rule of law.
The long-term health of the Republic rests not on the power of personalities, but on the collective will of those in public office to uphold the law without fear or favor. In this trial, the senator-judges are not merely deciding a legal case—they are revealing, in full view of the nation, whether the Senate still commands the trust it is duty-bound to earn.
