It's tough to see the Senate unable to stand up for something. It looks as if it is spineless.
Bum bones are sorry signs of paralysis. The disorder makes human faculties visceral. It addles one's resolve, implodes the will, prompts weaklings to scurry for an easy way out, minding convenience but never minding damning the rules. All told, this is a case of courage deserting grown women and men.
The post-election temperature has dropped, but the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte remains a political hot potato that most senators are unwilling to touch.
When the Senate shelved the case four month ago, disrespecting its own rules and the mandate of the Constitution no less, Senate President Francis Escudero explained that the legislative calendar offered little room for the chamber he heads to convene as an impeachment court. He went on to offer a date—June 2—in which the trial could begin. Last week, the date has been moved to June 11, again supposedly to ensure that nothing gets in the way of lawmaking.
Part of the existing Senate rules on impeachment provides that on “xxx the day appointed for the trial of an impeachment, the legislative business of the Senate, if there be any, shall be suspended” (Rule X). This is compelling enough as to suggest that legislative work must yield to impeachment proceedings, as Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel III has explained. He and Senator Risa Hontiveros are about the only dissenting voices in a room that keeps finding ways to delay Duterte’s trial.
That Escudero and most senators could go as far as to make light the intent not only of Senate rules but even of the Constitution has given rise to the suspicion that, at best, they pander to public perception (as suggested by surveys, for example) and, at worst, they are owned by fear of Duterte. Article XI, Section 4 in the 1987 Constitution says that “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
At a time when Duterte continues to enjoy public approval, survey-based decision making lowers the bar of governance. It is disappointing enough that the election process is largely a function of popularity, but for the administration of justice and of accountability to now be captive of popularity is a new low.
There is a historical backdrop by which today’s Senate is measured.
In 1991, the late then President Corazon Aquino sent to the Senate a treaty for ratification. The treaty (RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Peace) sought the continued presence of US military bases in the country. But despite strong public support for the bases (Aquino even braved a downpour to lead a march to the Senate by like-minded lobbyists), the Senate mustered enough votes to reject the treaty.
Twelve senators, later labelled by media as “The Magnificent 12,” stood up to show courage in the defense of their conviction. They consisted of then Senate President Jovito Salonga, Agapito Aquino, Juan Ponce Enrile, Joseph Estrada, Teofisto Guingona Jr., Sotero Laurel, Orlando Mercado, Ernesto Maceda, Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Victor Ziga, Rene Saguisag, and Wigberto Tañada.
For being unmindful of what the survey said (at a time when pollsters enjoyed credibility), these stubborn senators would soon suffer whipping at the polls. Salonga, alongside Pimentel, ran for president and vice-president, respectively, in 1992 and was roundly defeated. They placed last among six contenders for the same position.
Unlike the 1991 version, today’s Senate appears more driven by public perception than the moral suasion of what they believe in, especially on matters of national interests whose ends require ways and means that go beyond individual preferences. People learn their lessons, and politicians are better off being popular than being grounded in character.
Today’s leaders, rightly or wrongly, may even raise the issue of the Senate’s non-ratification of the treaty in 1991 as the lid that years later would open risks of territorial grab in West Philippine Sea. The establishment of an independent foreign policy would always remain ideal; but pragmatism comes around to knock idealism crashing back to earth, as the country now endures the constant threat of aggression by another country. Aquino’s predecessor, Marcos Sr., played the China card to compel the US support for his floundering government, and the Senate of 1991 has no card to play except national pride for having won democracy back from the dictator.
Rightly or wrongly, today’s leaders are wary of Duterte who, as the vice president, can be president in the future, maybe sooner than later. Let no one forget that she is the daughter of a former president who embraced China in such a scale similar to how he despised the US. She has said nothing inimical against China despite its rank disrespect of the country’s territorial rights.
This is the same person who now stands accused before the Senate for allegedly committing several impeachable offenses, including graft and corruption. The Senate looks at the allegations like they are inconsequential, judging from the way it keeps moving the penciled hearing date.
Are the senators unable to cope with a heavy workload?
Long hours of committee work often go into significant pieces of legislation. But about the only task that both the House and the Senate are really good at is passing the annual budget of the national government. And that is largely because there is in it for each one of them. Being good at the task does not mean ensuring that people's money would be spent where its optimal use is offered; it means ensuring that each one will have a piece of the outsized and constantly growing budget by way of kickbacks.
Or maybe they are simply scared of Duterte. Once upon a time there was a magnificent 12. Now there are only 2.
-------
The Manila Times, 4 June 2025
