Fate of Sara Duterte impeachment trial up to Senate plenary – Escudero
[Updated June 2, 2025, 2:20 p.m.]
MANILA, Philippines — Will the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte push through in the 20th Congress?
Senate President Francis Escudero clarified that the 19th Congress “cannot bind” the subsequent Congress with its decisions.
He explained that the 20th Congress would need to reconvene as an impeachment court and decide on its own in terms of the fate of the impeachment trial against the Vice President.
During a press conference on Monday, Escudero was asked whether members of the 20th Congress could choose not to convene as a court if they do not see the need to do so.
Irrepealable law
“There is that possibility. Again, we cannot bind subsequent Congresses. But that is only not applicable to us. All Congresses cannot bind subsequent Congresses by virtue of the principle that we cannot pass an irrepealable law,” the Senate chief said.
Later in the presser, Escudero was asked directly whether their scheduled convening on June 11 does not assure that the 20th Congress will pursue the trial.
Escudero said the problem with this question is that it would appear as if there’s “no assurance” that the trial would continue, repeatedly saying that this is not the case.
“We cannot bind the subsequent Congress – that’s all I’m saying. The next Congress can decide in the same manner or in a different manner. Hindi ko sinasabing walang assurance na hindi tutuloy. I am not saying that,” he said.
(I am not saying that there’s no assurance that it would continue. I am not saying that.)
“But you cannot also assure that it will happen in the 20th Congress because they can decide—” a member of the media pressed Escudero, but he interjected before the question was finished.
“In the ordinary course [of] events, it should. Unless — magkaiba yung tutuloy kung gusto nila sa hindi tutuloy kung ayaw nila. Magkaiba yon. Bakit magkaiba? In the ordinary course of events, it should – unless they decide otherwise,” he said.
(There’s a difference between the fact that they can continue because they want and they would not continue because they do not want. Those two are different things. Why? In the ordinary course of events, it should – unless they decide otherwise.)
Plenary to decide course of trial
Escudero earlier postponed the presentation of Articles of Impeachment against Duterte from June 2 to June 11.
He said the schedule change was made “to allow the Senate to tackle priority legislative measures before the 19th Congress adjourns.”
Despite this, he emphasized that while the Senate President may initially set the schedule, the plenary remains the supreme body that determines the course of proceedings and the direction the impeachment court will take.
“The plenary is the supreme body of the Senate. It gets to decide anything and everything although at first instance, it can be decided by the Senate President but ultimately, it will have to be confirmed and affirmed or rejected for that matter by plenary,” Escudero pointed out.
Before convening on June 11, Escudero said they would hear the motion of each member of the Senate and decide as a whole in the end — without prejudice to the 20th Congress.
“Let’s listen to all of that and all members of the 19th Congress would decide without prejudice to the 20th Congress deciding otherwise or in the same light given the fact that the 19th Congress cannot bind subsequent Congresses or any Congress for that matter,” he said.
Asked for his personal stand on the question whether the Senate should convene as an impeachment court before the 19th Congress adjourns, Escudero said in the natural course it should happen.
“That’s what needs to happen. Unless, as I said, someone makes a motion, someone objects — in the end, the plenary will decide.
Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives in a historic move which garnered over 200 signatures from lawmakers.
On the same day, Feb. 5, the articles of impeachment were transmitted from the House of Representatives to the Senate, but the upper chamber adjourned its session without tackling the document.
