Navigating Four Scenarios of Treachery: The Supreme Court’s Impeachment Tightrope Act

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 14, 2025

Opening Shot: The Senate Just Nuked the Constitution—and Nobody’s Talking About It

Hold onto your gavels, folks. The Philippine Senate’s jaw-dropping move to punt Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment articles back to the House isn’t just a procedural oopsie—it’s a constitutional Molotov cocktail lobbed straight at the heart of democracy. With the Supreme Court now stuck refereeing this political cage match and the House clutching a loaded gun, the Philippines is teetering on the edge of a legal apocalypse.

This isn’t just about Duterte’s political survival. It’s about whether impeachment—democracy’s ultimate accountability weapon—can withstand the Machiavellian knife-fight between dynastic warlords. Buckle up as we rip apart the four possible outcomes of this crisis, exposing the legal dumpster fire, political backstabbing, and ethical trainwreck threatening to incinerate the rule of law.

1. The Legal Dumpster Fire: Constitutional Rules? What Rules?

Scenario A: House Rejects the Remand – A Clown Show in Three Acts

The Pitch: If the House tells the Senate to shove its remand, the trial stumbles forward, possibly dragging across Congresses thanks to former Justice Azcuna’s half-baked “crossover” theory.

The Truth:

Constitutional Faceplant: The 1987 Constitution (Art. XI, Sec. 3(6)) screams that the Senate “shall proceed to trial”—not “shall play hot potato with the House.” There’s no textual lifeline for this remand nonsense or trials limping across congressional terms.
Precedent? Try Fan Fiction: Francisco v. House (2003) called impeachment a “continuous process,” but it never greenlit this Senate-House ping-pong. Azcuna’s theory is a legal fever dream, not a precedent.
Separation of Powers? Dead: The Senate’s remand is a brazen power grab, trampling the House’s exclusive right to kick off impeachments.

The Dirty Subtext: Duterte’s cronies (looking at you, Sen. Alan Cayetano) are stalling like cowards, hoping to drag this out past the 2028 election cycle while pretending to care about “procedure.” Nice try.

Scenario B: House Takes the Remand – A Constitutional Assassination

The Pitch: The House could yank the articles back, effectively spiking the impeachment into oblivion.

The Truth:

Unconstitutional Power Trip: Art. XI, Sec. 3(1) gives the House the sole power to start impeachments—not to claw them back after they’re sent. The Senate’s remand is a procedural coup d’état.
Precedent Torched: Gutierrez v. House (2011) made it crystal clear: once the articles hit the Senate, it’s a one-way ticket to trial town. No take-backs.
Pandora’s Box Unlocked: If the House folds, it hands future powerbrokers a blueprint for dodging accountability—just bribe, bully, or beg your way out of a trial.

The Dirty Subtext: Marcos’ House loyalists are itching to kneecap Duterte’s 2028 run without the mess of a public trial. It’s a slick move, but it reeks of a backroom fix.

Scenarios C & D: Supreme Court Steps In – Welcome to Judicial Hunger Games

Scenario C (Court Kills the Impeachment):

The Argument: Duterte’s camp is banking on the one-year bar rule (Art. XI, Sec. 3(5)), claiming the February 2025 complaint came too soon after December 2024’s.
The Catch: If the Court leans on Francisco (2003) to call the complaints “separately initiated,” the impeachment’s dead. But diving into this political swamp risks torching the political question doctrine and screams judicial overreach.

Scenario D (Court Greenlights the Impeachment):

The Outcome: The Senate’s forced to proceed—but if the House plays hardball and refuses to retransmit, the Court might have to play legislator to fix this mess, shredding separation of powers like confetti.

The Dirty Subtext: The Court’s in a no-win cage match. Side with Duterte, and it’s branded pro-Marcos. Uphold the impeachment, and it’s accused of cozying up to China (thanks to Duterte’s Beijing buddies). Good luck, justices.

2. The Political Knife-Fight: Dynasties Clash, Democracy Bleeds

Marcos vs. Duterte: Game of Thrones, Manila Edition

Marcos’ Play: With 2028 term limits looming, Bongbong Marcos needs to obliterate Sara Duterte, who’s currently crushing it with 33% voter support.
Duterte’s Counter: Her allies (like Sen. Bato dela Rosa) are screaming “political persecution” to rally her base and paint her as a martyr.

The Senate’s Spinelessness

Election Panic: Seven senators facing May 2025 midterms are terrified of voter backlash if they botch this trial.
“Hindi Nakakain ang Impeachment”: Senators are brushing off accountability as a luxury problem while Filipinos drown in inflation and poverty. Real classy, guys.

3. Ethical Apocalypse: Public Trust Goes Up in Smoke

Mocking the Constitution: The Senate’s remand spits in the face of Art. XI, Sec. 2’s promise to hold leaders accountable for “graft and corruption.”
House Hypocrisy: The same clowns who certified the impeachment’s legitimacy are now flirting with pulling the plug. It’s not just bad optics—it’s a neon sign screaming “rigged.”

4. Saving the Republic: Three Moves to Stop the Bleeding

Senate, Grow a Spine: Art. XI, Sec. 3(6) says “proceed to trial.” No excuses, no delays. Do your damn job.
House, Don’t Betray the Constitution: Withdrawing articles is legal treason. Retransmit them or face history’s judgment.
Supreme Court, Stay in Your Lane: Francisco’s political question doctrine exists for a reason. Don’t play superhero—or villain.

Closing Shot: The Rule of Law Is on Life Support—Who’s Pulling the Plug?

This impeachment saga isn’t just about Sara Duterte—it’s a do-or-die moment for Philippine democracy. If the Senate’s procedural stunt succeeds, impeachment becomes a toy for the elite, and the Constitution gets relegated to a dusty museum piece. The world’s watching, and the Supreme Court’s got the gavel. Will it save the rule of law—or light the match?

Key References:

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.