Impeachment Delayed: Senate President Escudero Undermines Accountability

By:
On:
In: Commentary, Editor's Pick, Law and Governance
Tagged: , ,

🕓 Last Updated: June 4, 2025, 1:11 am (PH time)

When Senate President Escudero chooses legislative housekeeping over a constitutional mandate, democracy suffers a blow it might not recover from soon.

Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s decision to delay the transmittal and presentation of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte until June 11 — just three days before Congress adjourns sine die — is not just a procedural choice. Rather, it is a deliberate sidelining of constitutional duty or mandate, a move that, in all respects, perilously chips away at the accountability principle underpinning democratic leadership.

Let’s be clear: the impeachment process is not ordinary legislation. It is a constitutional mechanism to ultimately hold the highest public officials accountable for betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other impeachable crimes. Its importance goes beyond legislative expediency or political diplomacy.

Escudero’s justification—that there are “12 priority bills” that must be attended to—puts policy work ahead of constitutional duty. Not only is this wrongheaded or misguided, but institutionally irresponsible as well. Legislative matters can be deferred; constitutional justice cannot.

A Constitutional and Moral Imperative

Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the “exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment and that the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” Once the House transmits the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate is duty-bound to convene as an impeachment court without delay.

In Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003), the Supreme Court underscored the exclusivity and constitutional importance of the impeachment process, cautioning against its politicization or trivialization. The moment the House exercises its constitutional authority and transmits the Articles, the Senate’s role is not one of discretion but of obligation.

Senator Escudero’s unilateral deferral of the process indicates that the Senate can just do away with impeachment as a matter of discretionary legislative obligation. That is simply false. There is no constitutional hierarchy between passing bills and performing impeachment duties. One is a routine legislative act; the other is a check on executive power enshrined in our Constitution.

Comparative Jurisprudence: A Global Standard

In the United States, impeachment is prioritized as a national emergency. When the House of Representatives transmitted the Articles of Impeachment against Presidents Bill Clinton (1998) and Donald Trump (2019, 2021), the Senate immediately reconstituted itself as an impeachment court. Even amid a pandemic and national crisis, the U.S. Senate did not delay the trial of President Trump.

In South Korea, the Constitutional Court swiftly heard the impeachment case of President Park Geun-hye in 2016-2017, resulting in her removal. The message from these democratic nations is clear: constitutional accountability is paramount, and delay is not an option.

A Senate Shielding Power, Not Checking It?

What makes this deferment more troubling is who stands to benefit. Vice President Sara Duterte has long been under scrutiny for alleged misuse of confidential funds and conduct unbecoming of a high public official. The gravity of the allegations—and the documents the House Committee on Justice reportedly reviewed—deserves more than political courtesy. They deserve the full light of constitutional procedure and public scrutiny.

Escudero’s move creates the perception that the Senate is shielding power rather than checking it. And this perception, if allowed to fester, undermines public trust not just in the Senate but in the entire legislative institution.

Weakening the People’s House

As someone working in the House of Representatives, I see firsthand how painstakingly representatives deliberate, draft, and push for the Articles of Impeachment. This is not a House-versus-Senate issue—it is an issue of institutional integrity.

By downplaying the Articles of Impeachment and prioritizing routine legislative acts—like adjusting the term of barangay officials or tweaking the tax on denatured alcohol—the Senate President sends a dangerous signal: that constitutional crises can wait.

They cannot. Justice delayed is justice denied. More dangerously, accountability delayed is democracy eroded.

Final Thoughts

We cannot afford to let the standard for constitutional responsibility be dictated by political convenience. The impeachment of a sitting vice president—especially one with clear ties to a powerful political dynasty—must be treated with utmost urgency and impartiality. Not just for the sake of legal procedure, but for the moral soul of our democratic institutions.

Senator Escudero must be reminded: the Senate does not exist to manage the President’s legislative agenda—it exists to protect the Republic’s constitutional balance. And in that duty, there should be no delays, no excuses, and no deference to power. ▲▼

💬 AI Use Disclosure: This is an AI technology-assisted article (ChatGPT, OpenAI). 👉 Learn more about our AI use.

Reference:

SEO Keywords: impeachment of VP Sara Duterte, Senate President Escudero, Philippine impeachment process, constitutional accountability, Chiz Escudero delay, Rule of Law Philippines, VP Sara Duterte confidential funds, House of Representatives impeachment, accountability in government, Philippine constitutional crisis

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *