Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada
Explanation of vote on the motion to archive the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte
6 August 2025
Mr. President, esteemed colleagues:
More than 190 years ago, Justice Joseph Story warned that impeachment requires “a lofty sense of duty, and a deep responsibility to future times, as well as to God.” His words remind us that we serve not only the present but generations yet unborn, and that our actions must be anchored in constitutional fidelity and historical consciousness. With that solemn duty in mind, I rise to address the decision of our Supreme Court.
Mr. President, the decision of the Supreme Court is very clear that it left no doubt nor space for any other interpretation. Accordingly, I manifest and place on record my position in adhering to the Supreme Court’s ruling—a decision that declared that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte because the complaint transmitted to us was null and void ab initio.
Bakit natin ipinipilit ang isang bagay na malinaw na wala sa ating kapangyarihan? Nagsalita na ang Korte Suprema, hindi saklaw at walang hurisdiksyon ang Senado. Tapos na ang usapin – patay na ang kaso.
Mr. President, we must never forget that the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of our Constitution. It is not merely one of three co-equal branches—it is the guardian of the rule of law. If we, the very makers of law, choose to defy its authoritative interpretation, then we commit an unforgivable assault on our democratic institutions and we undoubtedly invite a constitutional crisis—a breakdown of checks and balances, where anarchy replaces order, and chaos becomes the norm.
Let us be clear: no one is above the law. Not the President. Not the Vice President. Not even the Senate when it sits as an impeachment court.
The Constitution is not just an ordinary law—it is the supreme law of the land. And if we betray it to serve political passions or popular sentiment, then we betray the Republic itself.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines in a statement said that defying the High Court’s ruling would, in effect, “erode the very foundations of the legal order.” I agree with this.
At the expense of sounding like a broken record, I would like to say again that the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution. Tagapag-paliwanag ang Korte Suprema ng Saligang Batas.
At kapag may hindi pagkakaintindihan kung paano dapat ipatupad o unawain ang batas — kabilang ang proseso ng impeachment—ang interpretasyon ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman ang syang mananaig. Kaya naman, kapag nagsalita na ang Korte Suprema, dapat itong igalang at sundin ng lahat.
Ginoong Pangulo, batid natin na isang mahalagang mekanismo ang impeachment upang mapanagot ang pinaka matataas na opisyal ng pamahalaan na lumalabag o umaabuso sa kanilang posisyon at kapangyarihan. Sa ilalim din ng mekanismong ito ay may pagkakataon para maipagtanggol ang kanilang sarili.
Kaya naman dapat na magamit at maisagawa ng tama ang proseso at masiguro na ang mga naatasan ng Saligang Batas na magsagawa nito – ang House of Representatives at ang Senado – ay tumupad sa kanilang tungkulin nang may integridad at walang pagmamalabis sa kapangyarihang ipinagkaloob sa kanila. Hindi na sana dapat maulit ang pagkakamaling nasaksihan natin mahigit dalawang dekada na ang nakalipas sa kaso ng aking ama, ang dating Pangulong Joseph Estrada.
Kung inyong natatandaan, noong impeachment trial ng aking ama, pinagkaitan siya ng pagkakataong harapin ang mga paratang sa kanya dahil pinairal ang pansariling interes at hindi tumalima sa kanilang tungkulin ang mga prosecutors mula sa mababang kapulungan sapagkat nag walk out po sila.
Nakakadismaya, Ginoong Pangulo, na ganyan din ang nangyayari ngayon. Muli na namang nanaig ang pansariling interes, matinding emosyon at inuna ang pamumulitika dahilan upang humantong tayo sa sitwasyong sinabi ng Korte Suprema na may malinaw na paglabag sa ating Saligang Batas.
Had we decided to ignore the Supreme Court ruling and proceeded with the impeachment trial, we risk undermining the judiciary’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional issues and this will definitely create a dangerous precedent where future legislatures could just bypass court rulings they deem unwarranted.
Mr. President, my dear colleagues, there should be a balance of power among the three branches of government. And this representation does not wish the Senate to be in a direct collision course with the Supreme Court amid calls for us to proceed with the trial. I refuse to be part of a Senate that defies the law, disrespects the courts, and undermines the very system of justice we claim to uphold.
TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO INSIST ON PRESSING FORWARD, I ASK THESE QUESTIONS: IF WE CANNOT OBEY THE LAW, DO WE STILL DESERVE TO BE CALLED LAWMAKERS? IF WE CANNOT RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION, DO WE STILL DESERVE THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING IN PUBLIC SERVICE? AT KUNG ANG SENADO AY MAGMAMATIGAS AT HINDI TUTUPDIN ANG TUNTUNIN NG BATAS, HINDI BA’T TAHASANG PAGTALIKOD ITO SA ATING SINUMPAANG TUNGKULIN? KUNG HINDI NATIN KAYANG IGALANG ANG BATAS NA TAYO MISMO ANG NAGTATANGGOL, HINDI NA PO TAYO NARARAPAT DITO.
Mr. President, political will, however passionate or burning within us, is not always the path we should take. There are moments when even our deepest convictions must kneel before the altar of the Constitution, when our desire for action must bow to the rule of law.
Our strength as Senators lies not in bending institutions to our will, but in bending ourselves to the will of our constitutional framework. Our true power is revealed not when we flamboyantly get our way, but when we gracefully accept outcomes that defy our preferences. Our honor rests in respecting and embracing decisions that contradict our personal beliefs. And our legacy – our legacy is a democracy that works, preserved by our willingness to submit to something greater than our feelings, our pride, our ego, our very selves.
Mr. President, let history show that I chose principle over pressure, law over lawlessness, and country over partisanship. We are not shirking from responsibility, but to fulfill our highest duty: to uphold the rule of law, and to preserve the legitimacy of our institutions in accordance with the Constitution.
Let us act not with haste, but with honor. Let us preserve our Republic, not fracture it.
I did not swear an oath to defend emotion. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. President.