Philippine Senate convenes special session for VP Duterte's impeachment trial preparations
Philippine Senate majority agrees to elect lawyer-senator Escudero as impeachment trial presiding officer despite past criticism for delays.
Objective Facts
On June 17, Senator Panfilo Lacson announced that the Senate majority has agreed to elect Senator Francis Escudero as presiding officer of the impeachment court when it convenes on July 6, 2026, to try Vice President Sara Duterte. This selection became possible after the Senate published amended impeachment trial rules on June 9, 2026, under Senate Resolution No. 48, which allows senators to elect a presiding officer by majority vote in cases not involving the sitting president. Lacson justified the choice by citing Escudero's status as a lawyer and his experience presiding over the 2025 impeachment court when he was Senate president. However, civil society groups and legal scholars had previously accused Escudero of unnecessarily delaying the 2025 impeachment process, with critics arguing that the Constitution required proceedings "forthwith". The Senate convened as an impeachment court on May 18, 2026, following the House transmission of Articles of Impeachment alleging graft, unexplained wealth, and constitutional violations, with a pre-trial conference scheduled for June 18 and the trial expected to begin on July 6, 2026.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Civil society groups, legal scholars, and impeachment advocates have expressed concern over Escudero's selection despite his legal background. Several lawmakers, legal scholars, civil society groups and impeachment advocates have accused Escudero of unnecessarily delaying the 2025 impeachment process, with critics arguing that the Constitution's requirement that impeachment cases proceed "forthwith" called for immediate convening of the Senate as an impeachment court. In June 2025, activist groups and objecting lawmakers protested when the Senate under Escudero's leadership voted to return the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives rather than immediately proceeding to trial, arguing that the Senate had a constitutional duty to hear the case without further delay. Escudero delayed the impeachment trial multiple times while awaiting midterm elections in which pro-Duterte candidates won Senate seats. Left-leaning critics argue Escudero's track record raises concerns about whether he will move expeditiously this time. Rappler reported that Escudero was heavily criticized for allegedly dragging his foot on the trial; the House submitted articles on February 5, 2025, but the Senate did not convene as an impeachment court until June 10, 2025, and on August 6, 2025, the Senate moved to archive the articles, effectively killing the case. Leading legal luminaries have slammed Escudero for delay tactics, with the Constitution mandating that impeachment must proceed "forthwith". Left-oriented coverage notes the irony and potential weakness of installing as presiding officer someone whose previous leadership of the impeachment process drew widespread criticism for unnecessary delays and procedural obstacles.
Right-Leaning Perspective
The Senate majority bloc, particularly through Senator Panfilo Lacson, has defended Escudero's selection on merit and legal grounds. Lacson argued that aside from being a lawyer, Escudero has experience in handling impeachment proceedings, having served as presiding officer of the Senate impeachment court in 2025 when he was Senate president. According to The Manila Times, Lacson stated that the presiding officer should have basic knowledge of the law because there are instances during trial when motions and procedural issues must be acted upon immediately, and senators concluded that the presiding officer must possess solid understanding of legal procedures and parliamentary rules. Senate majority figures have emphasized the selection reflects institutional needs, not political calculation. Lacson denied that it was part of the deal for Escudero to bolt the Cayetano bloc and join the new majority, emphasizing that the presiding officer should have basic knowledge of the law. The Manila Times reported that sources said the decision aligns with Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian's recommendation, who emphasized Escudero's legal background and extensive experience in legislative proceedings as key qualifications for the role. Right-leaning coverage frames this as appointing a qualified legal professional to a role requiring expertise, dismissing prior delays as context-dependent rather than character evidence.
Deep Dive
The Senate majority's announcement on June 17 that it will elect Escudero as presiding officer represents a consequential procedural decision tied to broader Senate leadership struggles. The context matters: In early June 2026, a leadership coup ousted then-Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano (a Duterte ally who had presided over the initial May 18, 2026 convening of the impeachment court), replacing him with Acting Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian. This power struggle followed Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa's return from hiding to support Cayetano's elevation in May, and subsequent arrest of another senator and political chaos. The amended impeachment rules allowing senators to elect a presiding officer (rather than defaulting to the Senate president) were adopted during this same leadership turmoil. Escudero, a lawyer, had initially sided with the Cayetano bloc but switched to the Gatchalian majority on June 3, breaking the impasse. Escudero's qualifications are genuine but contested. He does have legal training and did preside over the 2025 impeachment trial. However, that 2025 experience is precisely the point of contention. The House submitted articles on February 5, 2025, but the Senate did not convene as an impeachment court until June 10, 2025, and on August 6, 2025, the Senate moved to archive the articles, effectively killing the case. Whether this four-month delay violated the Constitution's "forthwith" mandate or represented legitimate preparation remains disputed. Critics argue Escudero deliberately slow-walked the case to protect Duterte; supporters argue he was managing a complex institutional process. What's clear: the 2025 trial never reached a substantive judgment on the merits due to Supreme Court nullification on a technicality, leaving questions about the trial's fairness and efficiency unresolved. The majority bloc's selection of Escudero appears strategically sound from an institutional standpoint—installing a lawyer reduces risk of presiding-officer errors that could be appealed—but politically vulnerable given the historical baggage. The reported decision has drawn mixed reactions from various sectors that had previously criticized his handling of the 2025 proceedings. The timing of Escudero's bloc switch immediately preceding his elevation to this post invites cynical interpretations, though Lacson's explicit denial of a quid-pro-quo suggests either the decision was genuinely merit-based or the political operatives are skilled at message discipline. What matters next: whether Escudero, presiding this time over the second iteration of Duterte's impeachment trial, moves proceedings forward expeditiously or reproduces the delays that haunted 2025. His conduct during the July 6 trial convening and beyond will test whether 2025 was aberration or pattern.