Judiciary vs. Legislature: The Constitutional Clash Shaping Philippine Politics

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 20, 2025

THE Philippines is on the brink of a constitutional crisis—one that could redefine its democracy. A high-stakes legal showdown between the Supreme Court and the Senate has thrust Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial into the spotlight, exposing a dangerous rift in the nation’s political foundations. As the Senate resists calls to convene, citing procedural delays and election season distractions, the question looms: Will the rule of law prevail, or will political expediency erode the very principles of accountability?

The Legal Crossroads: Constitutional Clarity or Political Ambiguity?

At first glance, the petitioner, lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr., appears to have a strong case. The Philippine Constitution is unequivocal in stating that once the House of Representatives transmits the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate “shall forthwith proceed” with the trial. The term “shall” indicates a mandatory duty, and “forthwith” suggests immediacy. If the Constitution’s language is to be taken at face value, the Senate has no discretion to delay.

Yet, the Senate, led by President Francis Escudero, argues that it cannot convene during a congressional recess, a position echoed by legal experts who highlight the principle of separation of powers. Legal precedents like Sanidad v. Comelec (1976) suggest that the judiciary cannot issue a writ of mandamus against a co-equal branch. However, in Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), the Supreme Court asserted its authority to intervene in impeachment proceedings when constitutional mandates are violated.

If the high court intervenes, it could reaffirm its role as the guardian of the Constitution. If it declines, the Senate’s delay could set a dangerous precedent where constitutional obligations become subject to political convenience.

The Political Power Play: Who Wins, Who Loses?

Beyond the legal arguments, the political stakes are immense. The delay benefits Vice President Duterte, whose impeachment could be effectively nullified if the Senate does not act before June 30, when the current Congress adjourns. Under Senate rules, all pending matters die with the expiration of a Congress. If the new Senate reopens the case, it could be interpreted as initiating a second impeachment, which is barred within a one-year period.

Critics argue that this delay is a blatant maneuver to shield Duterte from accountability. House prosecutors contend that the Senate’s inaction subverts democratic principles, effectively granting impunity to high-ranking officials. However, Duterte’s allies counter that the impeachment is politically motivated and that the Senate’s procedural concerns are valid. Meanwhile, supporters of the Marcos administration remain cautious, wary of setting a precedent that could be used against them in future political battles.

If the Supreme Court compels the Senate to convene, it would mark a significant check on legislative discretion. If it declines, it would reinforce the notion that impeachment is a political process immune to judicial intervention. Either way, the decision will shape future impeachments and power dynamics between the branches of government.

What This Means for Philippine Democracy

This stand-off exposes deeper structural flaws in the Philippines’ political system. The impeachment process, designed as a mechanism for accountability, is being manipulated by power struggles and legal loopholes. If the Senate can delay at will, what prevents future leaders from using procedural technicalities to evade justice? If the Supreme Court intervenes, what prevents it from overstepping its constitutional role?

This moment calls for institutional reforms:

Clarification of impeachment timelines: Future amendments should explicitly state whether the Senate must convene even during recess.
Judicial oversight of procedural compliance: The Supreme Court should assert its role in ensuring that constitutional mandates are upheld.
Stronger penalties for procedural obstruction: Legislators who deliberately delay constitutional duties should face consequences.

The Supreme Court’s Dilemma: A Defining Choice

The high court now faces a crucial decision: uphold the clear language of the Constitution or defer to the Senate’s procedural autonomy. If it rules in favor of the petitioners, it asserts the judiciary’s role in enforcing constitutional accountability. If it dismisses the case, it risks enabling a dangerous precedent where legislative bodies can sidestep constitutional duties under the guise of procedural discretion.

This isn’t just about one impeachment—it’s about the kind of democracy Filipinos want to uphold. Will the rule of law stand firm, or will political maneuvering erode it? As history has shown, a nation’s future is shaped not just by its leaders, but by the people who demand accountability.