Romualdez’s Defiant Fist: Why the Senate’s Retreat on Duterte’s Impeachment Threatens Justice

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 12, 2025

MANILA’S streets erupt in chaos. Protesters clash outside the Senate, their shouts of “Justice!” colliding with cries of “Sara!” as placards denouncing Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged crimes—graft, corruption, a brazen assassination plot—battle banners decrying a political lynching. Inside, Speaker Martin Romualdez’s fist crashes against the podium, his voice a defiant roar: “The House does not back down!” This is no mere political spat; it’s a constitutional crisis threatening to unravel Philippine democracy. The Senate’s audacious move to return Duterte’s impeachment articles is a gut-punch to accountability, a sleight-of-hand that risks letting a vice president dodge justice. This is a nation on the brink, torn between a yearning for clean governance and the seductive pull of authoritarian nostalgia. Will the Senate’s cowardice prevail, or will the people’s demand for truth triumph?

A Constitutional Coup in Disguise

The Senate’s 18-5 vote to remand the impeachment articles against Sara Duterte is a brazen overreach, a move with no anchor in the 1987 Constitution. Article XI vests the House with exclusive power to initiate impeachment and the Senate with the duty to try it—nowhere does it grant the Senate authority to toss the articles back like a rejected script. Speaker Romualdez is unyielding: the House, with 215 votes (far surpassing the required one-third), meticulously built its case over weeks, exposing Duterte’s alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and a chilling November 2024 boast of hiring an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife, and Romualdez himself. As Rep. Gerville Luistro declared, “The ball is already in the hands of the Senate.” The House’s process was transparent, rigorous, and constitutionally ironclad.

The Senate’s demand for certifications—that the House didn’t violate the one-year bar on multiple impeachments and that the incoming 20th Congress wishes to pursue the case—is a flimsy smokescreen. The Constitution’s one-year bar (Article XI, Section 3(5)) is clear, but the Supreme Court’s Francisco v. House (2003) ruling demolishes their argument: the bar only applies after a complaint reaches the House justice committee. The earlier complaints against Duterte never advanced that far, rendering the Senate’s objection baseless. This isn’t legal diligence; it’s a deliberate stall, a betrayal of the House’s constitutional sovereignty. As UP law professor Paolo Tamase warned, the Senate’s attempt to micromanage the House is a power grab that could cripple future impeachments. The Senate’s move is nothing less than a constitutional coup, dressed up as procedure.

The Great Accountability Charade

The House’s resolve stands in stark contrast to the Senate’s spineless dithering. Romualdez’s chamber spent months investigating Duterte’s alleged crimes, from siphoning public funds to her jaw-dropping threat: “If I am killed, I have an assassin ready to take out the President, his wife, and the Speaker.” The Presidential Security Command didn’t shrug it off, nor did the 215 lawmakers who voted to impeach. This was no snap decision; it was a democratic mandate, a response to a vice president who treats public office as a personal playground. Yet the Senate, in a shady 18-5 vote shrouded in backroom deals, chose to punt. Former Senator Leila de Lima branded it “cowardice,” and she’s dead-on. The Senate’s own summons to Duterte proves it has jurisdiction—its remand is a dodge, a refusal to face the truth head-on.

The opposition’s howls of “procedural violations” are a house of cards. Duterte’s camp claims the House rushed the impeachment in seven minutes, conveniently ignoring the months of public hearings that preceded it. The one-year bar argument is equally hollow—Francisco v. House guts it, and the Senate’s issuance of a summons undermines its own procedural posturing. Claims of a political vendetta? They collapse under scrutiny. The House’s case isn’t about personal scores; it’s about a vice president who flirted with treason and allegedly looted public coffers. The Senate’s delay, meanwhile, reeks of fear—fear of Duterte’s political machine, fear of the 2028 election fallout, fear of holding power to account. It’s a charade that mocks the very idea of justice.

Puppets and Power Plays

The Senate’s obstruction is no accident; it’s a calculated move in the Marcos-Duterte feud, a dynastic showdown cloaked in legal jargon. The 2022 “UniTeam” alliance between Marcos and Duterte is a distant memory, shattered by policy clashes and personal betrayals. Marcos’s pro-US stance clashes with the Dutertes’ pro-China tilt, evident in Sara’s refusal to condemn China’s aggression in the West Philippine Sea. Her July 2024 resignation as Education Secretary and her snub of Marcos’s State of the Nation Address were public declarations of war. Then came her assassin remark, a reckless escalation that turned simmering tensions into a full-blown crisis. Senator Imee Marcos, the president’s sister, spilled the beans: the impeachment is a maneuver to derail Duterte’s 2028 presidential bid. The Senate’s remand, backed by Marcos-aligned senators, is less about procedure than preserving a dynasty’s grip on power.

Romualdez, for his part, has been a beacon of transparency. His leadership saw the House conduct open hearings, laying bare Duterte’s alleged crimes. Yes, whispers of his own budget insertions linger, but his commitment to accountability shines against the Senate’s opacity. The Armed Forces of the Philippines’ reports on China-US tensions raise the stakes: Duterte’s silence on China isn’t just a policy lapse; it’s a betrayal of national interest. The Senate’s delay risks emboldening a faction nostalgic for Rodrigo Duterte’s iron-fisted rule, a dangerous step backward for a nation struggling to uphold democratic ideals.

A Nation Betrayed

The Filipino people are caught in a maelstrom. A February 2025 WR Numero survey paints a fractured picture: 33.3% support the impeachment, fueled by outrage over Duterte’s alleged graft and assassin quip; 47% oppose it, viewing it as elite-driven theater; 20% remain undecided, exhausted by political games. Outside the Senate, protests rage—cries of “Justice!” clash with chants of “Sara!” The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a scathing rebuke, warning that the Senate’s actions “betray institutional trust.” Church leaders, once restrained, now decry a “spectacle of impunity.” Social media is a battleground, with #ImpeachSara vying against #StopTheWitchHunt.

This isn’t just politics—it’s a gut-wrenching betrayal. Every Filipino who dreams of honest governance feels the Senate’s inaction like a slap. Duterte’s alleged crimes—looting public funds, threatening the president—cut deep in a nation still reeling from her father’s brutal legacy. Yet 47% of Filipinos, especially in Duterte strongholds, see her as a bulwark against Manila’s elites. The Senate’s delay fuels their distrust, whispering that justice is a luxury for the powerless. As one protester told Al Jazeera, “If Sara walks free, what hope is there for us?”

A Call to Save Democracy

This is Philippine democracy’s breaking point. The Senate must end its obstruction and try the case it’s constitutionally obligated to hear. Its demand for certifications is a stall tactic, not a legal necessity—Francisco v. House settled the one-year bar debate. If the Senate persists, the Supreme Court must step in, affirming the House’s sole authority to initiate impeachment and slapping down the Senate’s overreach. The Court’s silence on Duterte’s petition to void the impeachment only deepens the crisis; a swift ruling is non-negotiable.

International observers, from groups like Transparency International, must watch closely to safeguard democratic integrity. The Philippines’ allies, especially the US given Marcos’s alignment, should signal that impunity won’t be tolerated. Above all, Filipinos must rise—not with violence, but with relentless pressure on their leaders. The Senate’s hand-wringing over “due process” while ignoring a vice president who joked about assassination is a mockery. Romualdez’s fist on the podium is a call to arms for justice. The House speaks for the 33% demanding accountability; the Senate, hiding behind procedure, betrays the 47% who deserve clarity. History will judge this moment not by legal niceties, but by whether power sided with the people or the oligarchs.

Tweet-Length Takeaways

The Senate’s return of Sara Duterte’s impeachment articles is a betrayal of justice, shielding a VP who threatened assassination. #PhilippineDemocracy
Romualdez’s House delivered with 215 votes for accountability. The Senate’s 18-5 dodge is a Marcos-Duterte power play. #ImpeachSara
A vice president’s assassin quip demands a trial, not Senate stalling. Filipinos deserve truth, not elite protectionism. #JusticeNow

Accountability Scorecard

Speaker Martin Romualdez: A+ for Unyielding Resolve. Steered a transparent, constitutionally bulletproof impeachment with overwhelming House support.
House of Representatives: A for Steadfast Duty. Conducted rigorous, public hearings, upholding the people’s mandate despite political firestorms.
Senate Impeachment Court: F for Gutless Evasion. Remand order lacks constitutional grounding, delays justice, and erodes public faith.
Vice President Sara Duterte: D- for Defiant Denial. Rejects graft and assassination plot charges with no credible defense beyond “political persecution.”
Supreme Court: C for Dangerous Inaction. Silence on Duterte’s petition fuels uncertainty; must rule to protect House sovereignty.
Filipino Public: B for Fierce Engagement. Split (33% for, 47% against), but protests and Church outcry reflect a desperate hunger for justice.