ON Monday evening the people of the Philippines were treated to what will go down in history as one of the most infamous episodes in Philippine politics, when the Senate moved, almost simultaneously, to prevent the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, and to harbor the fugitive Sen. Ronald de la Rosa, who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). In carrying out both of these acts, the Senate has revealed itself to be the shame of the nation, willing to embarrass the Philippines before the entire world for the sake of petty political favoritism, in gross violation of the Constitution, the judgments of the Supreme Court and the democratic will of the people.
The show opened with a coup against Senate President Vicente Sotto III by the Duterte-aligned minority senators, who mustered enough votes to oust him from that position and replace him with Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. This was something that was anticipated by Sen. Erwin Tulfo a day earlier, even before an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives voted to forward the articles of impeachment against Duterte to the Senate, but Tulfo’s warning was to no avail. Sotto, of course, while being careful not to prejudge the case against Duterte, had made it clear that he would see to it the Senate carried out its constitutional duty to form an impeachment court "forthwith," should the articles of impeachment be received.
Cayetano, for his part, has made no such promise, and rather weakly attempted to convince his fellow senators and the public that the change in Senate leadership had nothing to do with the impending impeachment trial. Absolutely no one believed him, and neither do we, given Cayetano’s record of accommodating whatever political camp or ideological position he perceives as personally advantageous.
Cayetano and his allies are on the wrong side of public opinion, as well as the Constitution. Multiple public opinion surveys have shown an overwhelming majority of Filipinos want the vice president to face the allegations against her. An online petition launched on Monday night, which sought 500,000 verified signatures demanding Duterte stand trial, had gathered 4.3 million by early Tuesday morning. Duterte has steadfastly claimed her innocence, and has characterized the impeachment proceedings as a political witch hunt, but has just as stubbornly refused to offer any defense. It was hoped that she might finally do so in a Senate impeachment trial; after all, from the point of view of those who support her presumed candidacy for the presidency in 2028, a successful defense and acquittal would likely propel her to the top job she so desperately seeks.
Choosing instead to rely on Senate allies to thwart due process through political maneuvering simply means the nagging questions surrounding her will continue to fester. Some might conclude that opting for such a course is not the behavior of one who is confident in her innocence, but that is something the people will have to decide for themselves.
Were that the extent of the Senate drama on Monday night, that would have been enough, but the evening’s circus featured a surprise guest performer in the person of de la Rosa, emerging from hiding to cast his vote to oust Sotto. As recently as Sunday, despite reports that the ICC had issued a warrant, the ICC said none had been publicly released. By Monday, however, it had been, and it quickly became clear that was the reason de la Rosa reappeared. When agents from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) arrived to arrest him, Cayetano ordered the Senate complex locked down and the NBI personnel expelled; but not before de la Rosa led them on a comically embarrassing footrace through the building, the video footage of which quickly became viral online.
Cayetano has said that the Senate will harbor the fugitive de la Rosa at least until the ICC warrant is submitted to and approved by a Philippine court. That statement ignorantly disregards that the Supreme Court itself has already confirmed the validity of such a warrant, as far back as 2021, in G.R. 238875. The lengthy ruling validated the withdrawal of the Philippines from the Rome Statute in 2019, but also confirmed that the provisions of that treaty applied for cases covering the time period before that withdrawal — including its provision that parliamentary or ministerial immunity of persons accused could not be invoked to avoid arrest.
