As the Philippine Senate embarks on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the nation stands at a critical juncture. What should have been a solemn and principled occasion as an opportunity for the Senate to affirm its commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule of law has instead become a mirror reflecting troubling biases and conflicts of interest among some key senators. The integrity of the entire process depends on whether those tasked with judging the case are truly impartial.

The principle of judicial impartiality is not merely a procedural formality; it is the cornerstone of credible and legitimate legal proceedings. An impartial tribunal ensures that justice is administered without favoritism, prejudice, or undue influence. When senators act as judges, they undertake a serious responsibility: to evaluate evidence objectively and render a verdict based solely on facts and the law. Failing to do so compromises the legitimacy of the trial and diminishes public trust in our democratic institutions.

Regrettably, several senators namely, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, Bong Go, Robin Padilla, Imee Marcos, and Alan Peter Cayetano, have demonstrated overt political loyalties and personal ties that cast doubt on their ability to judge fairly. Whether through longstanding alliances, shared political ambitions, or personal relationships with Vice President Duterte, their continued participation raises serious questions. Their presence in the courtroom risks turning the impeachment into a political spectacle rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

To draw a parallel, when a judge has a clear conflict of interest, recusal is mandatory. It is not a punishment but a moral and legal obligation to prevent bias from tainting the proceedings. The same principle applies here. Senators who have demonstrated allegiance or closeness to Duterte cannot reasonably claim to be impartial arbiters. Their active participation in the trial undermines the very foundation of justice and diminishes the credibility of the process.

Furthermore, insisting that these senators remain part of the tribunal despite their biases is akin to asking a judge to preside over a case involving a close family member which is an obvious conflict that should disqualify them from judging. Expecting the public to accept a verdict handed down by senators with known loyalties to the accused is to insult their intelligence and dismiss the principles of fairness that underpin democracy.

Recusal, therefore, must be viewed as a duty, not an option. Senators with demonstrable conflicts of interest should voluntarily step aside to uphold the integrity of the trial. If they refuse, the Senate itself must take decisive action either through moral persuasion or formal procedures to ensure that only impartial members are part of the process. Anything less risks turning the impeachment into a sham, eroding public confidence and tarnishing the reputation of our democratic institutions.

This trial is not merely a political maneuver or a media spectacle. It is a litmus test of whether the Senate can uphold the rule of law amidst pressures and political loyalties. The outcome will influence how Filipinos perceive justice and whether our institutions can withstand the temptations of partisanship.

Allowing a trial conducted by senators with known biases to proceed unchallenged will inevitably cast a shadow over whatever verdict is ultimately reached. The process itself will be viewed with suspicion, and the legitimacy of the outcome will be forever questioned. Such a scenario risks undermining the very foundation of justice and democracy in the Philippines.

The clear course of action is straightforward: Senators who have demonstrated personal or political biases must recuse themselves either voluntarily, out of a sense of duty and integrity, or through formal mandates if necessary. The integrity of the trial and the trust of the Filipino people depend on this.

Anything less than complete impartiality is not justice; it is a betrayal of the oath these senators took to serve the Filipino people and uphold the Constitution. The nation deserves a process that is transparent, fair, and rooted in genuine impartiality. Only then can we hope that the verdict reflects the truth and the rule of law, rather than the whims of political loyalty.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Duterte during the 2nd PSHS-ZPRC Commencement Exercises in Dipolog on June 6, 2023 (Public Domain)

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.