LISTEN TO ARTICLESynthesized Narration • 0:00 / 0:00

After months of delaying tactics, on August 6, the Senate archived the articles of impeachment against VP Sara Duterte. The motion was a response to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, deeming the complaints unconstitutional. The House of Representatives sought a motion for reconsideration. Archiving essentially puts the complaints to sleep—remaining in record until it is revived by the Senate through a majority vote. Given their clear unwillingness to proceed with the case, doubts are cast whether our senators value the importance of accountability. When the articles of impeachment were first filed on February 5, Senate President Chiz Escudero made the move to postpone the trial to June. In contrast, Article XI, section 3 (4) of the 1987 Constitution explicitly stated that once the articles of impeachment are initiated, the trial shall start forthwith, which means, immediately. Escudero contended that the senate was currently in recess. Glaringly, however, he approved Senator Imee Marcos’ investigation on the arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte, the vice president’s father. If the Senate was able to investigate the arrest of the former President, why were they not able to start the impeachment trial of the Vice President? On June 10, four months after the House filed the impeachment case against Duterte, the Senate finally convened as an impeachment court. But through a majority vote, the complaints were returned to the House of Representatives to certify whether the complaints were constitutional—another decision that some viewed as favorable to the Vice President. Going back to the Supreme Court’s ruling, their pronouncements are held to a high degree, but it does not mean that we have no right to question or even criticize their rulings. So long as our frustrations have bearing, we are free to express them. Additionally, the Supreme Court is not superior. If the Senate had the right to question the House’s decision and remand the complaints handed to them, they have the same right to question the Supreme Court. Lastly, the court is not free from errors or concerns. History has shown that even the Supreme Court, “the last bastion for justice,” enabled controversial moves. In Aquino Jr. v. Enrile, the Supreme Court declared that it was “practically unanimous” that the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of writ of habeas corpus were constitutional, allowing the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos Sr. to continue his oppressive reign. Moreover, the court’s declarations are not always final. Senator Risa Hontiveros cited two cases. First, the ISAA and others vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia of the Philippines; second, LCP vs. COMELEC. In both cases, the court made pronouncements that they later reversed. The point is that the Supreme Court is not “all-knowing.” In the end, the courts are composed of people, each with their own interpretations and beliefs. Just because they are “the last bastion of justice” does not mean we cannot question their decisions—in fact, it is an integral aspect of democracy. The same goes for every institution in our country. As for the Senate, let this be a reminder to stop electing officials that have hidden agendas beyond public interest. Are the people not tired of the state’s ongoing tradition of partisan politics, clientelism, and dynasties? We should not act blind. Even in this case, corruption is flaunting their might, pointing and laughing. When will the public recognize this? If there are clear signs that something is wrong in our system, we let our voices be heard. Back in 1986 our countrymen toppled a dictator because they sought justice, and they did so through their deep love for the country and through their strong principles. Wherever the impeachment case may lead to, we should not let go of our pride, nor should we forget our values.