EDITORIAL: Constitutional Accountability

THE first several days of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial have left many Filipinos wondering whether the proceedings are moving at all.

Objections have multiplied, legal arguments have stretched for hours, and the central question—whether the Vice President remains fit to hold office—appears buried beneath procedural debates.

The frustration is understandable. Yet the delays are not necessarily evidence that the process is broken. They are, in many ways, the consequence of how the Constitution itself designed impeachment.

Impeachment occupies a unique space where law and politics intersect. The Constitution instructs the Senate to “try and decide” impeachment cases.

Trying a case demands legal discipline—examining evidence, hearing witnesses, and respecting due process. Deciding it, however, is entrusted not to career judges but to elected politicians.

And herein lies the greatest constitutional paradox.

Unlike magistrates in the judiciary, senator-judges are not detached observers. They belong to political parties, maintain alliances, prepare for future elections, and often have relationships—friendly or adversarial—with the official being tried.

In many instances, the outcome of an impeachment case may directly or indirectly affect their own political fortunes.

Thus, the Senate is asked to judge a controversy in which many of its members are, politically speaking, participants themselves.

This reality naturally raises doubts among the public. Can those who have political stakes in the outcome truly render an impartial verdict?

It is a fair question.

The Constitution itself does not pretend that senator-judges possess the same institutional independence as members of the Supreme Court.

Instead, it relies on something far more demanding: that elected leaders, despite their political interests, will honor the oath they took to uphold the Constitution above party loyalty and personal ambition.

Whether that expectation is realistic depends less on the Constitution than on the character of those who serve under it.

This is why the public must closely watch not only the evidence presented but also the conduct of every senator-judge. Every vote, every ruling, every statement made inside the impeachment court contributes to the public's assessment of whether senators are acting as constitutional officers or merely as political operatives.

At the same time, due process must never be dismissed as an inconvenience. Procedural objections may appear tedious, but they exist to prevent impeachment from becoming nothing more than political arithmetic.

Without legal safeguards, accountability can easily become persecution. Without political judgment, legal procedure alone cannot determine whether a public official still deserves the people's trust.

The Constitution deliberately places these competing principles in tension.

What many perceive as inefficiency is, in truth, the difficult price of preserving both justice and accountability.

The greater danger, however, lies not in the slow pace of the proceedings but in the possibility that political loyalty may outweigh constitutional duty. When senators allow partisan interests to dictate their judgment, they undermine the very institution they have sworn to protect.

The Senate impeachment court was never designed to be perfect. It was designed to challenge its members to rise above politics precisely because politics surrounds them.

Whether they succeed is no longer a question for the Constitution.

It is a question of conscience.