Constitutional Clash: Who Wields the Hammer in Duterte’s Impeachment Showdown?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 11, 2025

THE impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, primed to erupt in July 2025, has ignited a constitutional inferno: who wields the gavel—Chief Justice or Senate President? University of Asia & the Pacific Law Dean Jemy Gatdula’s viral Facebook post hurls a legal Molotov, demanding the Chief Justice preside, citing the 1987 Constitution’s dictate that the Vice President “may be removed from office in the same manner as the President.” The Senate, entrenched in tradition, grips its practice of Senate President control. Buckle up for a ruthless, precedent-fueled dissection, torching every argument in this legal war zone.

1. Constitutional Carnage: Shredding Articles VII and XI in a Textual Massacre

The 1987 Constitution is a minefield of ambiguity. Article VII, Section 3 roars: “There shall be a Vice-President… He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President.” Article XI, Section 3(6) adds fuel: “When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote.” Dean Gatdula welds these, claiming “same manner” summons the Chief Justice for VP trials. Does it hold?

Textual Slaughter: “In the same manner” in Art. VII, Sec. 3 aims at process—House impeachment, Senate trial, two-thirds conviction vote. It’s mute on the VP’s presiding officer. Art. XI, Sec. 3(6) names the Chief Justice only for the President, a surgical carve-out. Stretching this to the VP is a bridge too far—judicial overreach in disguise. Silence hands the Senate the reins.
Precedent’s Guillotine: The 2012 trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona saw Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile grip the gavel, not the Chief Justice, per Impeachment in the Philippines. Ditto for Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in 2011. Tradition fills the void, backed by Gutierrez v. House (G.R. No. 193459, 2011), which blessed Senate procedural freedom. Gatdula’s claim collapses: no text demands the Chief Justice, and history buries it.

Verdict: The Constitution and precedent eviscerate the Chief Justice mandate. Ambiguity chars, but the Senate rules the rubble.

2. Ethics Inferno: Nuking the Senate President’s Power Grab

Senate President Escudero presiding over Sara Duterte’s trial sparks a moral blaze: a guilty verdict could sling him into the VP’s chair, even briefly. Is this a Game of Thrones power heist in legal robes?

Succession’s Tinderbox: Art. VII, Sec. 8 decrees: “In case of… removal of the President… the same shall devolve on the Vice-President.” If the VP falls, Art. VII, Sec. 9 triggers: the President nominates a new VP from Congress, pending confirmation. In the gap, the Senate President often assumes VP duties, per practice. Not a direct throne, but the scent of gain scorches impartiality.
Ethical Firestorm: The Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 3) commands “impartiality” and shuns “impropriety or the appearance thereof.” Gutang v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 124760, July 8, 1998) incinerated a judge for bias where personal stakes loomed. Escudero’s potential VP stint isn’t certain, but the shadow of bias violates due process Art. III, Sec. 1. Can a successor-in-waiting be fair?
U.S. Mirror in Flames: The U.S. Constitution Art. I, Sec. 3 tasks the Chief Justice with presidential trials to dodge VP bias. The Philippines, inspired by this, limits the Chief Justice to the President in Art. XI, Sec. 3(6). Why not the VP? Our framers left a chasm, and the Senate’s fanning the flames.

Blast Zone: Escudero’s role isn’t illegal, but it’s an ethical volcano. The U.S. model exposes the rot: neutrality craves a clean referee. This blaze threatens the trial’s soul.

3. Procedural Powder Keg: Senate’s “Sole Power” or Constitutional Detonator?

Art. XI, Sec. 3(1) arms the Senate with “the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” Does this lock in the Senate President, or does the Chief Justice’s role ignite an exception?

Senate’s Warhead: “Sole power” is a bunker. Francisco v. House (G.R. No. 160261, 2003) unleashed the political question doctrine, barring court meddling absent “grave abuse of discretion” breaching the Constitution. Senate rules, forged here, tap the Senate President for non-presidential trials, as in Corona’s 2012 fall Impeachment in the Philippines. No text calls for the Chief Justice, so the Senate reloads.
Constitutional Spark: Gatdula fuses “same manner” in Art. VII, Sec. 3 with the Chief Justice’s role in Art. XI, Sec. 3(6). But silence isn’t a trigger—it’s a vacuum. The President’s rule is precise; the VP’s is fog. Forcing the Chief Justice risks a judicial coup against Senate turf.
Judicial Armageddon?: The political question doctrine guards the Senate, but Francisco greenlights a strike if constitutional lines snap. If Escudero’s bias torches due process Art. III, Sec. 1, the Supreme Court could detonate. Yet Gutierrez v. House (2011) salutes Senate freedom—no text breaks here.

Explosion: The Senate’s “sole power” is a juggernaut, and no constitutional blast demands the Chief Justice. Bias could spark a fight, but the Senate’s fuse burns strong.

4. Remedy Rampage: Judicial Uprising or Doomed Status Quo?

The trial’s fate teeters. Can the Supreme Court storm the gates, or are we chained to a flawed machine?

Certiorari Blitz: A writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court could haul the Supreme Court in, alleging grave abuse if Escudero’s role guts due process. But Francisco v. House (2003) cautions: impeachment’s political, and courts flinch. Silence on the VP’s presiding officer dulls the blade—will the Court torch Senate power? Unlikely, unless bias flares red-hot.
Senate Reform Rebellion: Rewrite Senate rules to crown the Chief Justice for VP trials, echoing the President’s process. This dodges judicial invasion, honors Art. XI, Sec. 3, and quells bias. But senators clutch their domain—reform’s a corpse on arrival, especially mid-Duterte clash in July 2025.

Path Forward: Certiorari’s a faint hope; the Court likely balks. Reform’s ideal but politically slaughtered. The Senate President’s reign staggers on, scars blazing.

5. Crystal Ball of Chaos: Will the Supreme Court Surrender or Unleash a Constitutional Tsunami?

The Supreme Court stares into the abyss. Will it bow to political heat or drop a legal nuke? Past rulings bet on retreat: Francisco (2003) and Gutierrez (2011) salute Senate turf, and no text thrusts the Chief Justice into VP trials. Silence fortifies the status quo. But if Escudero’s bias—say, skewed rulings—reeks of due process decay Art. III, Sec. 1, the Court might strike. Odds tilt 70-30 to deference, with politics raging in June 2025. A tsunami ruling would quake the system, but caution likely rules.

Call to Arms: Extinguish the Flames or Watch the Republic Burn?

Senate President Escudero grips the gavel—and a shot at Sara Duterte’s seat. The Constitution’s cracks and ethical wildfires fuel a trial on the brink. Art. VII and XI collide, tradition wrestles text, and bias stalks the shadows. The Supreme Court can charge, or the Senate can reform—but delay courts disaster. If the Constitution burns today, who’s next tomorrow?

Key Citations

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.