07/07/2026
YAYAM's Editorial |
ARE SENATOR-JUDGES MOONLIGHTING AS DEFENSE LAWYERS?
8th July 2026
When senators take their oath as judges in an impeachment court, they leave behind their roles as politicians. At least, that is what the Constitution expects. From that moment forward, they are no longer expected to defend political allies, attack political opponents, or score partisan points. They are expected to judge.
The very word "impeachment" explains why. It traces its roots to the Old French empêcher, meaning "to hinder" or "to prevent," which itself derives from the Latin impedicare, meaning "to restrain" or "to shackle." The constitutional concept evolved as a mechanism to restrain those entrusted with public power from abusing that power. Impeachment was never created as a weapon of political revenge. It was created as a constitutional safeguard to protect the Republic from officials who may have betrayed the public trust.
That is why impeachment exists in many constitutional democracies. The framers recognized that elections alone are not enough to guarantee accountability. A public official may be lawfully elected yet later commit acts that raise serious constitutional questions. Instead of allowing political crises to be settled through violence, coups, or unrest, democracies established impeachment as a peaceful, lawful, and institutional process for determining whether an official should remain in office.
That constitutional design also explains why the Senate sits as an Impeachment Court, not as a political caucus. Every participant has a defined role. The House prosecutors present the evidence. The defense answers the charges. Witnesses testify. Legal objections are resolved. The senator-judges evaluate the evidence, apply the law, and render judgment based solely on the record before them.
It is precisely because of these constitutional roles that many Filipinos have become uneasy after observing some senator-judges, including the Cayetano siblings, appear at times to advance arguments more commonly expected from the defense than from members of an impartial tribunal. Vigorous questioning is not only proper. It is necessary. Judges are expected to test the strength of the evidence presented by both sides. But there is an important constitutional distinction between scrutinizing an argument and appearing to construct, reinforce, or advocate for one side's legal position.
The accused unquestionably enjoys constitutional rights, including the right to due process. But the Filipino people possess a constitutional right as well, the right to an impartial impeachment court. Those two principles are not in conflict. They complement one another. Due process protects the accused, while judicial impartiality protects the integrity of the institution itself.
The defense already has experienced lawyers whose sworn duty is to advocate zealously for their client. The House prosecutors likewise have their own constitutional mandate. Senator-judges were never intended to supplement either legal team. Their duty is to hear, evaluate, deliberate, and decide. Once a judge begins assuming the role of counsel, even the appearance of neutrality begins to erode. In constitutional proceedings, appearances matter because public confidence rests not only on fairness itself but also on the public's ability to see that fairness is being observed.
This is not about demanding a conviction. Neither is it about demanding an acquittal. The outcome should depend entirely on the evidence and the law. What should concern every Filipino is whether the tribunal itself remains faithful to the constitutional role assigned to it. A judge who appears to have chosen a side weakens the court even before a verdict is rendered.
History will remember this impeachment long after today's political debates have faded. Future Senates will inherit the precedents established by the senator-judges of this generation. If they demonstrate discipline, restraint, and impartiality, they will strengthen one of democracy's most important accountability mechanisms. But if they are perceived as becoming advocates for either side, they risk diminishing public trust in an institution that depends almost entirely on its credibility.
The defense already has its lawyers. The prosecution already has its prosecutors. The Filipino people have only one Impeachment Court. They deserve senator-judges who remember which side of the courtroom they are supposed to be on, not as defenders, not as prosecutors, but as judges. That is what the Constitution demands. That is what democracy requires. And that is what public trust deserves.
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
YAYAM's Editorial | Fearless views, sharp insights, unapologetic truth.
