Senate Power Grab: Can Escudero’s “Simple Majority” Tactic Bury Duterte’s Impeachment and Democracy?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C Biraogo — June 28, 2025

THE Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has taken a dangerous turn—one that could redefine accountability, constitutional integrity, and the very soul of Philippine democracy. At the center of the storm? Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, whose controversial assertion that the impeachment court can junk the case by a simple majority vote [1] has ignited a firestorm of legal, ethical, and political debates.

Is this a legitimate procedural maneuver? Or a brazen power play to shield an embattled VP from justice?

Let’s dissect the bombshell claims, the legal landmines, and the shadowy political calculus behind Escudero’s explosive statements.

I. THE LEGAL BATTLEGROUND: CAN THE SENATE REALLY DISMISS IMPEACHMENT BY MAJORITY VOTE?

Escudero’s Argument: “Simple Majority for Dismissal, Two-Thirds for Conviction”

Escudero claims that while conviction requires 16 votes (two-thirds of the Senate), a mere 13 votes (simple majority) can dismiss the case outright [1]. His reasoning?

Constitutional Silence – The 1987 Constitution (Art. XI, Sec. 3) explicitly mandates a two-thirds vote only for conviction, leaving other decisions (like dismissal) to Senate discretion [2].
Senate Rules – The Senate Impeachment Rules (Rule V, Sec. 1) state that “all questions relating to the proceedings… shall be determined by a majority vote,” which Escudero interprets as allowing dismissal without trial [3].

The Counterargument: “This Is a Constitutional End-Run”

Legal experts and critics are blasting Escudero’s interpretation as a dangerous distortion of impeachment’s purpose [4]:

“Trial by Senate” is Mandatory – Art. XI, Sec. 3(6) states the Senate “shall try and decide” impeachment cases. Dismissal without trial violates this duty [5].
Precedent Matters – In past impeachments (e.g., Chief Justice Renato Corona), the Senate heard evidence before voting on guilt or innocence—not dismissing on technicalities [6].
Public Trust at Stake – The Constitution (Art. XI, Sec. 1) declares “public office is a public trust.” Letting a majority kill impeachment without scrutiny betrays that principle [7].

Bottom Line: Escudero’s move isn’t just legally shaky—it risks turning impeachment into a political weapon, where allies can shield allies without accountability [8].

II. DUTERTE’S “ONE-YEAR BAN” DEFENSE: LEGITIMATE OR LEGAL GAMESMANSHIP?

Duterte’s Claim: “Fourth Complaint is Void Ab Initio”

Duterte argues the impeachment is invalid because:

Three prior complaints were filed in December 2024 [9].
The Constitution (Art. XI, Sec. 3(5)) bars multiple impeachments within one year [10].
Thus, the fourth complaint (February 2025) should be dismissed immediately [11].

The Fatal Flaw: “Initiation” Requires More Than Just Filing

The Supreme Court already settled this in Francisco v. House (2003):

“Initiation” only occurs when a complaint is (1) filed AND (2) referred to the House Committee on Justice [12].

Here’s the kicker: The first three complaints were never referred. The House prosecution argues they were never “initiated”, so the one-year ban doesn’t apply [13].

Why This Matters:

If Duterte’s argument wins, future officials could flood Congress with sham complaints to trigger the one-year shield [14].
If the House’s interpretation holds, it confirms the current impeachment is valid—meaning Escudero’s dismissal gambit is the only remaining hurdle [15].

III. THE ETHICAL TIME BOMB: IS ESCUDERO PLAYING JUDGE OR POLITICIAN?

Conflict of Interest?

Escudero was endorsed by Duterte in 2022 [16].
His ruling could save her presidency—and his own political future [17].

Undermining Judicial Integrity

Legal scholars warn that dismissing impeachment without trial sets a catastrophic precedent [18]:

“If 13 senators can kill impeachment, then no high official will ever face consequences.”

Even Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel warns that rushing dismissal invites Supreme Court intervention—but fears it’s a “trap” to delay accountability [19].

Public Outrage Brewing

Social media is exploding with accusations that Escudero is bending the rules to protect Duterte [20]:

“Judges cannot just dismiss a case without a trial!” – Facebook critic [21].
“This is Erap 2.0—another elite cover-up.” – Online commenter [22].

IV. THE VERDICT: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Scenario 1: Senate Dismisses by Majority (Escudero Wins)

Duterte walks free without trial [23].
Public trust collapses—impeachment becomes a joke [24].
Supreme Court may intervene, but historically, it avoids impeachment disputes [25].

Scenario 2: Trial Proceeds (Constitution Wins)

Evidence on confidential fund misuse, assassination threats, and corruption gets aired [26].
Duterte either survives (if acquitted) or falls (if convicted)—but democracy is preserved [27].

Recommendations

Senate Must Hold a Trial – No shortcuts. Let evidence decide [28].
Escudero Must Recuse if Biased – Ethical duty under the Code of Conduct for Public Officials [29].
Supreme Court Should Clarify Rules – If the Senate abuses its power, judicial review is mandatory [30].