Philippine Senate to SC: ‘Yes, Daddy’—How Judicial Overreach and Political Pussy-footing Killed Impeachment

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C Biraogo — July 30, 2025

THE Philippines’ latest constitutional circus is a masterclass in legal cowardice and judicial sleight-of-hand, starring Senate President Francis Escudero as the spineless ringmaster and the Supreme Court as the self-appointed puppetmaster. The Supreme Court’s July 25, 2025, ruling declaring Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment unconstitutional, and Escudero’s obedient refusal to convene the Senate as an impeachment court, have turned a constitutional check into a political charade. Let’s dissect this travesty with the precision of a hungover lawyer slicing through a bad brief.

Escudero’s Banana Republic Pantomime

Oh, Francis, you silver-tongued lawyer, clutching your pearls about avoiding a “banana republic” while bending over backwards for the Supreme Court. Escudero’s insistence that the Senate must respect the Court’s “final and immediately executory” ruling—detailed in the Manila Times report—is less about constitutional piety and more about dodging political shrapnel in the Duterte-Marcos feud. He invokes the 2012 Corona impeachment, where the Senate complied with a Supreme Court temporary restraining order (TRO), as if that’s a sacred precedent rather than a convenient crutch.

Constitutional Violation: The Constitution’s Article XI, Section 3(6) grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, as clarified in Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives (2003). The Senate isn’t the Supreme Court’s errand boy.
Hypocrisy Exposed: Escudero once thundered about Senate independence, railing against encroachments on legislative prerogative. Now, he’s playing the dutiful altar boy, genuflecting to the Court to protect his 2028 ambitions. It’s not a constitutional crisis he fears—it’s a career crisis.
Banana Republic Theatrics: His “banana republic” rhetoric is a cheap flourish, masking his refusal to take a stand. If this is leadership, I’ve seen braver cockroaches.

The Supreme Court’s Procedural Kabuki

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a masterwork of selective originalism, cloaked in procedural sanctimony. They struck down Duterte’s impeachment for violating the “one-year bar rule” under Article XI, Section 3(5), which prohibits multiple impeachment proceedings against the same official within a year, as reported by Rappler. Fair enough—except where was this textual fidelity in 2018’s Sereno v. Republic? Back then, the Court invented a “quo warranto” bypass to oust Chief Justice Sereno, sidestepping impeachment entirely.

Selective Originalism: The Court’s sudden obsession with the one-year bar reeks of cherry-picking. In Sereno, they ignored the Constitution’s impeachment exclusivity for justices, but now they’re sticklers for procedure when it suits Duterte.
Political, Not Judicial: Gutierrez v. House (2011) explicitly warned that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial sandbox. Yet the Court’s playing nanny to Congress, micromanaging procedural minutiae like a law professor grading a moot court brief.
Due Process Farce: The Court’s pearl-clutching over Duterte’s lack of access to draft articles or evidence is laughable when Sereno was ousted without a Senate trial at all. Where was due process then? This is teleserye justice, not law.

Why This Ruling Stinks Like a Durian in a Courtroom

Let’s connect the dots. Sara Duterte’s feud with President Marcos is Manila’s worst-kept secret, and this impeachment was a proxy war in their dynastic cage match, as noted by TIME. The Supreme Court’s procedural fastidiousness reeks of political calculus, clearing Duterte’s path for a 2028 run while keeping Marcos’ allies in check. Escudero, ever the opportunist, sees a chance to play neutral statesman, sidestepping a fight that could alienate either camp.

Elite Collusion: The Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) nailed it, warning of “elite collusion” masquerading as constitutionalism, as cited in the Manila Times. This is power preservation, not justice.
Ethical Failure: Escudero, a lawyer bound by Republic Act No. 6713 and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 1.01: no aiding in “unlawful or immoral” conduct), has a duty to uphold accountability. Instead, he’s enabling Duterte’s evasion of scrutiny for alleged fund misuse and threats, as reported by Reuters.
Judicial Hypocrisy: The Court’s due process tears for Duterte are crocodile tears when juxtaposed with Sereno’s judicial guillotine. This selective outrage is about keeping the right players in the game, not principle.

The Fallout: A Green Light for Impunity

For Filipinos, this is a gut punch. The ruling hands corrupt officials a playbook: file multiple impeachment complaints to trigger the one-year bar, then cry “unconstitutional!” It’s a technicality jackpot, ensuring accountability stays on permanent vacation. For democracy, it’s worse. The Supreme Court has crowned itself the impeachment bouncer, gatekeeping a process meant to be Congress’ domain. Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice (1999) shows how the Court’s “finality” dogma becomes a one-way ratchet for power grabs. Next stop: judicial tyranny.

For Filipinos: A green light for officials to dodge accountability via technicalities. “Just file three impeachments in a year, lol!”
For Democracy: The Senate’s acquiescence cements the Court’s power grab, turning a co-equal branch into a judicial lapdog. The Constitution deserves better than this spineless, self-serving circus. So does the Philippines.

Conclusion: A Farce of Justice, A Betrayal of Democracy

The Supreme Court’s meddling in impeachment and Escudero’s meek surrender have exposed Philippine democracy as a stage for legal pantomime—where constitutional checks are discarded when inconvenient, and judicial independence bends to political winds. By elevating technicalities over accountability and precedent over principle, the Court has not just shielded Sara Duterte; it has gutted impeachment as a tool against tyranny. Escudero’s cowardice and the justices’ hypocrisy are two sides of the same tarnished coin: a system where power protects its own, and the people pay the price. The ruling isn’t just wrong; it’s dangerous. It invites future abuses with a wink and a nod, proving once again that in Manila’s halls of power, the law is whatever the powerful say it is—until the people say otherwise.

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.

Key Citations

Constitutional Provisions

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(5): One-year bar rule on impeachment proceedings.
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(6): Senate’s sole power to try and decide impeachment cases.

Supreme Court Decisions

Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003): Clarifies Senate’s sole power to try impeachments and procedural compliance.
Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice (G.R. No. 193459, 2011): Emphasizes impeachment as a political process with limited judicial interference.
Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, 2018): Quo warranto ouster of Chief Justice Sereno, bypassing impeachment.
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 132601, 1999): Reinforces finality of Supreme Court decisions.

Statutory Law

Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials): Ethical obligations for public officials, including accountability.

News Reports

Manila Times, July 29, 2025: Escudero’s refusal to convene Senate and CenPEG’s “elite collusion” warning.
Rappler, July 25, 2025: Supreme Court’s ruling on Duterte’s impeachment.
Reuters, July 25, 2025: Allegations against Duterte and political context.
TIME, July 2025: Duterte-Marcos feud and political implications. 3D