I REFLECT on the first 39 days of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. As a former law student, I am animated by the exchange of barbs and interpretations. The memes are a side comic relief. Substantive discussions are often garnered in the interplay of technicality and reality. Some reflections:
1. A constitution may describe the limits of an impeachment but senators are entrusted with the rules governing them. The impeachment court lowered the votes needed for conviction from 16 to 14. In opposition, Senators Robinhood Padilla and Bong Go asked the Supreme Court to restore the 16-vote interpretation. An impeachment verdict carries consequences beyond one officeholder. The constitutional threshold should be examined with the same care as the evidence.
2. The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure but with political characteristics. It may be sui generis, but it is not a purely political process. Due process does not belong to one faction, and it does not disappear when an accused official is unpopular or when allegations stir public feeling.
3. Anything can happen. On the 39th day, prosecutors withdrew three of the four articles after presenting evidence on them. They said the remaining unexplained-wealth article was enough to proceed. The defense objected that allegations that were heard aired publicly would no longer be answered by their own witnesses. The court allowed the withdrawal, and that ruling did not decide whether the remaining charge is true. Yet the dispute showed why process matters: Allegations can shape public judgment long before the court reaches its own.
4. Impeachment proceedings may be discussed by counsels when allowed. The Senate impeachment court lifted last Tuesday the sub judice rule on impeachment articles 1, 3 and 4, pertaining to Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery and grave threats, respectively. This comes after the court allowed the House prosecution panel to withdraw the three articles, leaving in focus only one charge — article 2, or Duterte’s supposed unexplained wealth.
“The sub judice rule shall no longer cover the withdrawn articles, namely, Article 1, 3 and 4... The separate merits of Articles 1, 3 and 4 are no longer pending for adjudication. Accordingly, the prosecutors, the respondent, their respective counsel and witnesses may publicly address, explain and respond to any matter contained in those withdrawn....” said the ruling by Presiding Officer Francis Escudero.
For a Muslim woman, adl — justice — is not the promise that both sides will be pleased with the result. It is the duty to measure each claim fairly.
In Islam, the mīzān is the measure of justice: the Quran speaks of a balance established with truth and warns against making the measure deficient.
The mīzān does not ask us to soften accountability or shield the powerful. It asks that no one tilt the scale: not the accused through popularity, not the prosecution through momentum and not the public through impatience.
