By Atty. Howie Calleja
The 88% demand for Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment—a societal earthquake echoing across the Philippines—clashes with political manuevering this despite a clear Constitutional mandate. This isn’t merely a statistical anomaly; it’s a national cry for justice, reflecting widespread disillusionment with alleged corruption and a perceived culture of impunity. The sheer magnitude of this public outcry transcends political divides, age, and socioeconomic status, painting a stark picture of a nation yearning for accountability.
This yearning extends beyond the specific accusations against the Vice President; it represents a deeper frustration with a system perceived as failing to address fundamental needs like healthcare, food security, and infrastructure. The 88% is a symptom of a broader malaise, a collective rejection of a status quo that prioritizes personal interests over the urgent needs of the people.
However, the path to justice is fraught with political brinkmanship Several senators falsely argue a procedural hurdle: the transition from the 19th to the 20th Congress. After months of deliberate delay they now argue that existing Senate rules effectively kill the impeachment case, forcing a re-filing that’s legally impossible within the one-year constraint. This interpretation hinges on a narrow reading of the Senate’s rules, overlooking the distinction between its legislative and judicial functions.
Challenges however to this interpretation, highlights the Senate’s multifaceted roles—legislative, investigative, and judicial—and arguing that the cited rules apply only to its legislative function, not its Constitutionally mandated role on as an impeachment court. The ambiguity of the Senate rules is then addressed by both the Constitution and strengthened by jurisprudence declaring the Senate as a continuing body. Another is found in its own Senste rules. Section 135, which permits the use of precedents, specifically Hinds Precedents, a rich source of US Congressional experience with impeachment. Hinds Precedents clearly indicates that impeachment proceedings survive congressional adjournment. Further bolstering the Senate’s status as a continuous body, ensuring its rules remain in effect.
Personally, I believe that only a Supreme Court decision restraining the impeachment or a withdrawal of the impeachment articles by the House could halt the proceedings. The Constitution is clear and that any more delay would not only underscore the spirit and the words of the law but more so the search for truth, justice and accountability. The Senate’s action or in action. In the next few days will serve as a critical test of its commitment to the rule of law and the responsiveness of the government to the will of its people.
The 88% represents not just a number, but a moral imperative. This potent expression of public will. The Senator judges actions will determine not only the fate of the impeachment trial, but also the future of public trust in the Philippine government and the very foundations of its democracy. The stakes are impossibly high, and the nation watches with bated breath.
