[OPINION] Senador ang hahatol, pero bayan ang huhusga

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

It was January 2001. I was looking forward to a quiet evening when the phone rang. It was my classmate N, and he seemed agitated. “Are you watching?” I turned on the TV just in time to see TV Patrol replaying the clip of a dancing senator. 

“Erap is off the hook!” exclaimed N, who was part of the student government at the time. “We need to do something.” Do what, exactly? It’s done. The trial’s over. But N wouldn’t hear it and said he will call others. 

I shrugged, collapsed on the sofa, and tried to get some rest. But I couldn’t. I started watching the news instead. Within minutes I was also calling up people. The following day, I found myself in a packed lobby of UP Law in Diliman. The ever-reliable leftists were there, but so were the pro-ROTC block, the conyos, heck, even the religious club members. We all saw what the Senate did. We knew they had the power to do it, and we knew there was nothing we could do about it. But we didn’t care. We felt wronged. And we felt we had to do something. 

We went inside the auditorium. We had a lot of questions, and some of our professors went on stage to offer guidance. We asked, “Will the law school support us?” Professor Salvador Carlota said, “My job is to teach. I will hold classes.” Our hearts sank. Then he added with a wink, “But, if for some reason there are no students, what can I do?” The crowd cheered. 

Within the morning, we found ourselves walking — first to Quezon Hall and then after that, to EDSA. There was no plan, no leader, and no clue as to what could happen when we got there. The uncertainty was frightening. Erap was still president, after all. And us? We were just students. But by the time we reached EDSA, I discovered we were not alone. The rest is history.

I feel it’s time to tell our story because a new generation is about to witness another impeachment. And as the country is bombarded by commentary that the impeachment filed last February is “dead on arrival,” that it will be dismissed, or is now futile, I find myself in the same position where my professors were 24 years ago.  

Foolish and uphill

I am sharing our story because back in 2001, we were told the same things.

Every day there was some pundit saying how impeaching Erap was pointless, a waste of time, and, to a great degree, foolish. I asked a professor why the Senate pushed through despite the odds. His answer was simple but gave clarity of purpose: “Because of the Constitution, John. This has to be done.” (READ: How the seemingly impossible task of impeaching Erap was done)

What was true back then remains true today.

Popularity and power are not grounds to dismiss an impeachment complaint. Impeachment will always involve some of the highest-ranking officials of the land. It will always be an uphill battle. And, yes, it will always be foolish. Not everyone agrees that impeachment should be a priority today. But the constitutional die has been cast. Once the Articles are filed, a trial is what the Constitution commands. And, having witnessed several impeachments, it is what the Filipino public has come to expect.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says only popular impeachments, or those with a good chance of conviction should be taken up by the Senate. What it does say is that it is the Senate’s duty to conduct a trial once the House has filed the Articles of Impeachment. It is no random stranger who seeks to bother the Senate. The House is a co-equal body. The Constitution sets a high bar before the Articles can be filed. The House has met that bar. Now, it’s the Senate’s turn to heed the Constitution’s call. 

It is tempting to view impeachment trials as a discretionary matter within the whims of one senator or a group of them. It’s worth noting however that the Constitution imposed the duty (not power) to conduct the trial to the institution, not to one single senator.

Moreover, equating the role played by senator-judges with that exercised by justices overlooks a crucial difference. Impeachment requires the Senate to hold the trial of an official before the entire nation. In contrast, justices are required to cloister themselves and prevent the public from “intruding” even indirectly into a purely legal process.

What this means is that while the public is used to Supreme Court decisions being conducted behind closed doors, the same tolerance does not exist for Impeachment trials. How to conduct an impeachment trial is within the prerogative of the Senate. But the prerogative does not mean conducting one becomes optional or subject to a majority vote. 

It might be within the Senate’s “sole discretion” to decide on the guilt of the official impeached. But it would be unwise to overlook that citizens have become invested in seeing the process through. Impeachments have become embedded in the Filipino psyche. A “legal” reason, a technicality, can certainly be used to thwart the oncoming impeachment trial.

But beware. After the Erap and Corona trials, Filipinos are less in awe of the legal “gobbledygook” (remember who said that?) that lawyers use to get ahead in courtrooms.

We have seen what happens whenever senators forget whose will matters most when it comes to impeachments. We should remember what happened the last time a simple majority voted to deny the public a chance to find out what was inside an envelope. We should remember what happens when too much cleverness gets in the way of the Filipino’s need to find out the truth.

Perhaps most important of all, we should not underestimate the new generation that has come of age since the time of Erap and Corona. The 2025 mid-term elections caught even established survey firms by surprise — a tectonic shift credited by several observers to millennials and Gen Z. Those generations now sit inaudience of this impeachment trial. My generation had nowhere near the political sway these generations have. Yet, when that 2^nd envelope fiasco unfolded, we still managed to tip the scales. Imagine what this vast voting segment can do if they begin feeling the same way we did back in 2001. 

Politics, surveys, majorities, and sensibilities. None of these have any bearing on what the Constitution requires. The Filipino public, especially one that now count millennials and Gen Z as active players, will not be impressed by clever shortcuts. Because impeachments are not done in backrooms and under cover of darkness.

The Constitution states that the Senate is the sole judge in any impeachment. Totoo naman. Pero kailangan din natin tandaan na pagdating sa impeachment, maaring senador ang hahatol pero bayan ang huhusga. (While it is the Senate that will conduct the impeachment trial, it is the Filipino nation that will ultimately be the judge.) – Rappler.com

John Molo is a litigator who has handled several landmark cases before the Supreme Court. He teaches Constitutional Law in the College of Law of the University of the Philippines. He is a former President of the Harvard Law School Association of the Philippines and is the Chair of the Board of Editors of the IBP Law Journal.