Sara’s options

The en banc resolution of the Supreme Court in Torreon v. House committee on justice (Aug. 5, 2026) dismissing the petitions challenging Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment by the House of Representatives is a turning point in this political-legal saga. Though the ground relied upon is mootness, it could also be a signal that this time, the high court no longer wants to be dragged unnecessarily into partisan dramas grabbed in shimmering crimson. Unless grave abuse of discretion (which is judicially defined as “whimsical or arbitrary or capricious” action) is committed by the impeachment court, the highest court of the land, in my view, will not participate in political showmanship.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE VP HAS AT LEAST THREE MAJOR OPTIONS that, strange as it may seem, may be complementary to one another: (1) to defend herself to the sweet or bitter end, (2) to resign, and/or (3) to rally public support to avert her conviction.

On the first, the VP’s team has focused on challenging the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence and on questioning the relevance of several allegations in the articles of impeachment.

Article continues after this advertisement

The more intriguing queries are: Will VP Sara take the witness stand? If so, will she adopt an aggressive demeanor (as she had done in confronting a sheriff who was merely serving a court order)? Or will she keep a calm, careful, and measured stance? Will she be lined up as the last witness? Who among the prosecutors would dare cross swords with her? Will the senator-judges ask leading questions in the guise of “clarificatory” queries? How will she explain her alleged threats to the First Family, confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bank deposits, and tax records?

SECOND, VP SARA MAY RESIGN AMID THE ONGOING TRIAL. Will the senator-judges have the guts to continue the trial given that there are two penalties provided under the Constitution: removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding any public office. True, the case for removal would have become moot. Nonetheless, she could still run for the presidency in 2028, as she had previously announced, unless the senator-judges, by majority vote, continue the trial. And, by a two-thirds vote, impose the second penalty of perpetual disqualification that would bar her from running.

Recall that the Senate impeachment court expressly imposed in 2012 on then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona “the penalty of removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.” In contrast, then Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, who was unseated through an 8-6 quo warranto decision, was not disqualified from holding other public offices because no such penalty was imposed.

Incidentally, then United States President Richard Nixon voluntarily resigned in 1974 through a one-sentence letter that read: “I hereby resign as President of the United States.” In this way, he avoided impeachment by the US House of Representatives and removal by the US Senate over his participation in the Watergate scandal. He resigned because it became clear to him that he had lost the trust of the American people.

Article continues after this advertisement

KNOWING THAT THIS US PRECEDENT has a very persuasive effect on Philippine jurisprudence, VP Sara may—like former US President Bill Clinton, who also had high approval ratings—choose the THIRD option, that is, to rally public support to her cause to avoid conviction and removal.

While governed by the Constitution, impeachment cases are tried before a political body. Conviction requires the votes of two-thirds of all senators, and public sentiment often plays a decisive role. (Exactly how many senators constitute “two-thirds” deserves a future column.)

As I earlier said, Clinton also used this third option in facing the impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Though the US House of Representatives impeached him, the US Senate acquitted him in 1999. Throughout the proceedings, his public approval ratings consistently remained above 60 percent, enabling him to retain public opinion and secure acquittal.

Article continues after this advertisement

The same political dynamic may arise here, especially if former President Rodrigo R. Duterte returns to the Philippines dead or alive. Alive, if acquitted. Dead, if by some cause, he dies in detention in The Hague and his mortal remains are paraded along the main avenues of the country a la former Sen. Ninoy Aquino. Whether such a pivot would apply to the current setting remains an interesting variable.

To conclude, VP Sara’s trial transcends the political fortunes of all public officials. Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism designed to preserve the integrity of governance and to reaffirm the sacred principle that “a public office is a public trust.”

VP Sara may choose one or all of her options: mount a vigorous defense, resign, and/or rally public sentiment. At all events, this impeachment saga will eventually reach its final act. Other impeachments may follow, future officials may resign, and the tides of public approval may wax and wane, but the Constitution must endure. As the impregnable citadel of liberty and prosperity, it must remain our ultimate compass under the rule of law.

—————-

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com