PRESIDING Senator-Judge Francis Escudero is right to insist that fairness, balance and restraint must guide the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Without these, the court risks losing both credibility and constitutional legitimacy. Yet prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan offered an equally important reminder: fairness cannot be demanded only of the prosecution and defense. It must apply even more strictly to the senator-judges themselves. This reminder underscores the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
This should be obvious. Lawyers are advocates. They are expected to argue, persuade and defend their positions. The prosecution must prove its case, while the defense must protect the respondent. Senator-judges, however, have sworn to render impartial justice. They cannot demand restraint from advocates while exempting themselves from the same discipline. Escudero himself opened the trial by calling for prudence and impartiality.
Kapunan was therefore correct in stressing that fairness must also be directed inward. It is not merely about how lawyers speak, but how judges listen, question and decide. It loses meaning when invoked selectively to restrain one side while interventions from the bench appear to assist the other. Such selective application risks eroding public trust in the integrity of the proceedings. It also raises concerns about whether the outcome is being shaped by impartial deliberation or by subtle forms of advocacy from within the court.
Impeachment is both political and quasi-judicial. It is political because elected senators, not courts, decide the outcome. It concerns fitness for public office, not just criminal liability. Yet it is quasi-judicial because evidence must be heard, both sides treated fairly and decisions grounded in reason rather than partisanship.
This hybrid nature demands discipline. Senators must not act as partisans, nor should they behave like trial judges rigidly applying technical rules. Their role is to determine whether the conduct presented constitutes culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. This delicate balance requires both legal acumen and a deep sense of constitutional responsibility.
Thus, the conduct of senator-judges matters as much as the evidence. They may ask probing questions to clarify facts and test credibility. But there is a clear line between questioning and constructing a defense. When senators suggest answers, reframe damaging testimony or repeatedly advance interpretations favorable to the respondent, they risk appearing as advocates rather than judges.
This concern has surfaced in the current proceedings. Senators Pia Cayetano and Alan Peter Cayetano have offered highly legalistic interpretations that seem aimed less at clarifying facts than at weakening the prosecution’s case. Their questions often reduce broader constitutional issues to narrow technical inquiries. Alan Peter Cayetano’s distinction between a “warning” and a “threat” illustrates how such interventions can appear more like defense arguments than judicial inquiries.
The issue is not their legal expertise. Legal training can enrich the process. The problem arises when it becomes the sole lens through which impeachment is viewed. Impeachment is not simply a criminal trial in another venue. If it were, regular courts would suffice.
Instead, impeachment asks a broader question: Has the official’s conduct violated the trust required of public office?
This is especially relevant when the charge is betrayal of public trust. Not all abuses can be reduced to criminal elements. An official may erode public confidence or abuse authority without meeting the strict standards of criminal conviction. To force impeachment into a purely criminal framework undermines its constitutional purpose as a tool of political accountability.
Sen. Robinhood Padilla presents a different concern. His statements and interventions suggest a predisposition favorable to the respondent even before all evidence has been presented. While senators cannot be expected to have no prior views, they must show a willingness to reconsider them based on evidence.
Impartiality does not mean the absence of political beliefs. It means refusing to let those beliefs predetermine judgment.
This standard applies equally to those inclined toward conviction. A senator who automatically accepts the prosecution’s claims is no more impartial than one who consistently aids the defense. Fairness lies in openness to evidence, equal treatment of both sides and restraint from partisan advocacy.
Escudero, as presiding officer, bears special responsibility. He must not only regulate counsel but also guide senator-judges when their interventions become argumentative. Authority should not operate only against lawyers. It must also ensure discipline within the court itself. He is crucial in maintaining the delicate balance between order and fairness.
There is no practical way to strip senators of political loyalties. Impeachment was never meant to do so. But the Constitution requires them to exercise judgment fairly. This includes avoiding prejudgment, asking genuine questions rather than delivering speeches and reserving conclusions until all evidence is heard.
The public is watching not just the lawyers but also the judges. Every leading question, unsolicited legal theory or partisan remark shapes perceptions of whether the process is fair or predetermined.
Public confidence hinges on the belief that the process is guided by principle rather than politics. In a democratic society, such confidence is essential to preserving the legitimacy of constitutional processes. It is this perception of fairness that ultimately determines whether the public will accept the outcome of the trial.
Kapunan’s remarks should not be seen as defiance but as a reminder of what gives the court legitimacy. Senator-judges cannot demand balance from advocates while openly favoring one side. They cannot call for restraint while advancing arguments for the respondent. They cannot expect respect while undermining confidence in their impartiality.
Fairness must not be a tool used against advocates. It must first be a discipline imposed by judges on themselves.
Ultimately, the credibility of this impeachment trial will not depend on procedural perfection but on whether Filipinos believe the senator-judges genuinely listened, weighed the evidence and decided according to the Constitution rather than political loyalties. This belief will ultimately determine whether the verdict is accepted as just or dismissed as politically motivated.
Escudero is right to call for fairness. Kapunan is right to remind him that it must begin with the senator-judges.
The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of PTVNI.
