Beyond Political Theater: Why the Senate Cannot Proceed With the Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Duterte After the Supreme Court’s Final Ruling

 By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The Crisis of Constitutional Integrity

The Philippine Senate stands at a constitutional crossroads. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional and void, a faction of Senators has chosen defiance over deference, claiming that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is “sui generis”—a unique body unconstrained by judicial pronouncements. This stance, while cloaked in political bravado, reflects a grave misunderstanding of the fundamental architecture of Philippine constitutional democracy.

The assertion that the Senate may disregard a final and executory decision of the Supreme Court undercuts the very notion of the rule of law. Worse, it promotes a dangerous precedent: that political branches may insulate themselves from constitutional scrutiny by declaring their processes exceptional. This article provides a scholarly rebuttal to that claim and defends the primacy of judicial review in a republican system governed by checks and balances.

The Impeachment Process: Not Immune to Constitutional Limits

Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides the exclusive mechanism for the impeachment of public officials. While the House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate all cases of impeachment, and the Senate has the sole power to try and decide them, these powers are not absolute—they are circumscribed by constitutional limitations, including:

The One-Year Bar Rule (Sec. 3[5])

Due Process Requirements

Jurisdictional Thresholds

Procedural Regularity

The Supreme Court, in its July 2025 ruling, declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Duterte violated the one-year bar rule, lacked proper endorsement, and were procedurally infirm. The ruling was not advisory—it was a final and binding interpretation of constitutional law.

Judicial Review Is Supreme, Not Optional

Contrary to Senator Joel Villanueva’s assertion that the Senate impeachment court is sui generis and thus immune from Supreme Court rulings, the doctrine of judicial supremacy remains firmly entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence. As Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban once explained, “In our system of government, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all justiciable controversies, including the interpretation of the Constitution” (Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003).

To elevate the Senate's sui generis status above the Court’s authority is to invite institutional chaos. Sui generis does not mean supra-constitutional. The impeachment court may be unique in function but not exempt from constitutional constraints.

The Misuse of the Corona Precedent

Proponents of continuing the trial invoke the 2012 impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, where the Senate proceeded despite a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the SC. However, this analogy is legally flawed for two reasons:

1. A TRO is provisional.

The Court’s 2012 action was an interlocutory relief, not a final ruling on constitutionality.

2. In 2025, the SC issued a definitive, final judgment declaring the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional. Under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution, decisions of the Supreme Court are final and executory and form part of the law of the land.

To treat a temporary order as equivalent to a final ruling is a false equivalence that distorts precedent.

The Senate as an Impeachment Court: Bound by the Constitution

While the Senate possesses the sole power to try impeachment cases (Art. XI, Sec. 3[6]), this power is not carte blanche. It presupposes that a valid impeachment complaint has been properly transmitted by the House. If the originating complaint is void ab initio, the Senate has no jurisdiction to proceed. It is an elementary principle of law that a court—or any adjudicative body—cannot acquire jurisdiction over a non-existent cause of action.

The Supreme Court’s declaration of unconstitutionality operates erga omnes (against all), not just inter partes (between parties). The ruling voided the Articles of Impeachment, rendering the Senate's trial proceedings legally nonexistent.

To proceed regardless would be ultra vires—beyond the Senate’s authority—and tantamount to a constitutional usurpation.

Political Question Doctrine Does Not Bar Judicial Review

Some senators, such as Risa Hontiveros, lament the "climate change" in the Court’s approach, implying that impeachment is a “political question” beyond judicial reach. This argument is obsolete.

The Supreme Court settled this in Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), holding that while impeachment is a political process, the Court may intervene when constitutional boundaries are breached. The political question doctrine cannot be invoked as a shield for unconstitutional acts.

Furthermore, the Court in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 193459, 2011) clarified that while Congress has discretion in impeachment, it is not unbounded: it must comply with the Constitution’s express requirements. The one-year bar rule, for example, is not a suggestion—it is a command.

Checks and Balances, Not Supremacy of Politics

Senator Bam Aquino’s appeal to the Senate’s “co-equal” status is doctrinally misleading. Co-equality of branches does not imply equivalence in all respects. The legislature may pass laws, but it cannot interpret the Constitution. That power is vested solely in the judiciary. This is the heart of Marbury v. Madison, the bedrock of judicial review, which our legal system has long adopted.

Ignoring the SC decision under the pretext of “co-equality” is akin to asserting legislative impunity. It violates the very principle of constitutionalism—that government power is limited and accountable under the law.

Constitutional Fidelity, Not Political Expediency

In the end, what is at stake is more than a political trial—it is the integrity of the Constitution itself. To allow the Senate to proceed with an impeachment trial based on void and unconstitutional Articles is not only legally untenable; it is democratically dangerous. It violates due process, mocks the supremacy of the Constitution, and undermines public trust in our institutions.

If the Senate continues with this farce, it will set a precedent that the Constitution can be overruled by political will. That is not democracy; that is legislative tyranny.

Let us remind the Senate of its solemn oath: to uphold the Constitution, not override it.

“Fiat justitia ruat caelum”—Let justice be done though the heavens fall. But let it be justice grounded on law, not politics masquerading as principle. #

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University.  He is an AB-Philosophy Major at the University  of Santo Tomas ( UST). He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances.