When Judges Are Also Allies: Will Duterte’s Senators Uphold Justice or Rig the Trial?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 10, 2025

CAN the Philippine Senate truly deliver justice in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, or will political loyalty undermine its credibility? As the trial looms, one question dominates the debate: Should Duterte’s allies in the Senate step aside to ensure fairness?

At the heart of this controversy are four senators—Ronald Dela Rosa, Christopher Go, Robinhood Padilla, and Imee Marcos—whose political ties to Duterte are unquestionable. Their presence on the bench of impeachment judges raises urgent legal, ethical, and political dilemmas, and how they choose to proceed will determine whether the trial is a genuine pursuit of accountability or a foregone conclusion orchestrated to ensure Duterte’s acquittal.

The Legal Tightrope: Examining the Case for and Against Senatorial Inhibition

Under Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Philippine Constitution, the Senate serves as the sole tribunal in impeachment trials. Unlike the judiciary, where judges must recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise, senators are under no strict legal obligation to inhibit themselves from an impeachment trial, even when their impartiality is in question. The decision to step aside is entirely voluntary, and therein lies the problem.

However, Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, mandates that public officials should avoid conflicts of interest. Section 4(c) requires recusal in situations where impartiality might be reasonably doubted. Legal scholars argue that this provision could apply to impeachment trials, though enforcement would be difficult.

There is also precedent. During the 2012 impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, some senators voluntarily recused themselves due to perceived biases. If Duterte’s allies refuse to follow suit, they risk not only damaging the trial’s legitimacy but also reinforcing the belief that impeachment is merely a political game, not a serious mechanism for accountability.

The Moral Compass: Examining the Ethics of Delicadeza in the Impeachment Trial

Beyond legality, there is the ethical obligation of delicadeza, a Filipino cultural norm that demands public officials exercise propriety and avoid situations that create even the perception of undue influence. If senators with close personal and political ties to Duterte sit in judgment of her case, can they truly claim to be neutral arbiters?

Consider Senator Christopher “Bong” Go, a longtime Duterte family confidant who once served as President Rodrigo Duterte’s personal aide. Or Senator Ronald Dela Rosa, Duterte’s former police chief who owes his political career to the Dutertes. Robin Padilla, a staunch supporter of Duterte’s political brand, has openly dismissed the impeachment as a political attack. Imee Marcos, sister of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., is in a more complicated position—publicly close to Duterte but also mindful of her family’s own political calculus.

Their refusal to recuse themselves would taint the trial in the eyes of the public. The message it would send is clear: the impeachment trial is not about justice but about power, and those in power will not hesitate to protect their own, even at the cost of institutional credibility.

The Impeachment’s Political Calculus: A Numbers Game with High Stakes

Ultimately, impeachment is as much about raw political survival as it is about accountability. For Sara Duterte, the trial represents an existential threat to her 2028 presidential ambitions. For PDP-Laban, it is a fight to keep its political relevance alive. And for the Marcos administration, it is a high-stakes gamble to consolidate control over Philippine politics.

With 24 senators in the impeachment court, the math is simple: 16 votes are needed to convict Duterte. If her allies remain on the bench and vote as expected, their presence alone could tip the scales in her favor. The refusal to inhibit would not just be a legal question—it would be a political power play designed to ensure her acquittal, no matter the strength of the evidence against her.

Moreover, if Duterte’s allies recuse themselves, it could weaken her grip on her political base. The optics of her own loyalists stepping aside would signal vulnerability—a dangerous perception for someone who seeks to project strength ahead of the 2028 elections.

The Broader Implications: Democracy or Dynasty?

The decision of these senators will have consequences beyond Sara Duterte’s political future. It will send a message about whether the Philippines remains committed to impartial justice and democratic accountability or whether the country remains hostage to dynastic rule and political impunity.

Should Duterte’s allies remain in the impeachment court, expect public outrage and potential legal challenges questioning the fairness of the proceedings. The Marcos administration and its congressional allies, who have already moved against Duterte, may escalate their efforts to counteract PDP-Laban’s strategy. Civil society groups, opposition leaders, and even international observers could denounce the trial as rigged, deepening public distrust in government institutions.

If they choose to inhibit, however, they could set a precedent for future impeachments—one that prioritizes fairness over partisanship. It would signal that, despite its deeply entrenched political divisions, the Senate is still capable of upholding some measure of institutional integrity.

The Impeachment’s Legacy: Ensuring a Fair and Transparent Trial

For the impeachment process to be credible, the Senate must:

Ensure Voluntary Inhibitions Where Necessary – Senators with clear political ties to Duterte must act with integrity and voluntarily recuse themselves, if only to preserve the trial’s legitimacy.
Enforce Transparency – The rules of impeachment must be clarified to prevent senators from shielding Duterte through procedural loopholes. The public must have access to all relevant deliberations, including any legal justifications used to justify non-inhibition.
Reject Partisan Bargaining – Senators must prioritize institutional integrity over political alliances. The Senate’s role as an impeachment court demands impartiality, not political horse-trading.
Hold Public Officials to Ethical Standards – Even if the law does not mandate recusal, the principle of delicadeza should not be abandoned. Public officials should be held to higher ethical standards to restore public trust in government.

The Trial That Could Define a Generation

The impeachment trial of Sara Duterte is not just about one woman’s political survival—it is about the survival of Philippine democracy itself. The refusal of her allies to inhibit themselves would confirm the worst fears of many Filipinos: that justice is negotiable, power is absolute, and accountability is a mere illusion.

In the coming weeks, the Senate will face a simple yet profound choice: Will it stand for truth and justice, or will it stand for political expediency? The fate of the impeachment trial—and the future of Philippine governance—depends on the answer.