Lacson: Senators can’t judge and defend at the same time

National

AS the Senate prepares to don its judicial robes, Senator-elect Panfilo “Ping” Lacson is making one thing clear — this court isn’t a stage for judges to play defense.

Lacson cautioned his fellow senators against initiating any motion to dismiss the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, calling it an overstep that would violate the principle of judicial neutrality. He stressed that such a move must come from the defense, not from the bench, and warned that the idea of a judge dismissing a case before trial would reduce the process to absurdity.

He argued that while impeachment trials differ from criminal proceedings, the standard of judgment should not fall below a “preponderance of evidence.” If evidence clearly supports the charges—even without proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt—he said he would vote to convict. However, in the absence of that threshold, acquittal would be the only reasonable outcome. He reminded the public that the stakes in impeachment are political, not penal: removal from office, not imprisonment or fines.

Lacson’s remarks were prompted by Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s recent statement suggesting that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, could entertain a motion to dismiss. The senator-elect countered that this approach conflicts with the Senate’s constitutional role to “try and decide” such cases. He emphasized the need for the prosecution to present its evidence before any action on dismissal could even be considered.

“My initial thinking is that we should follow the Constitution, plain and simple,” Lacson said in a Philstar report.

The senator-elect also pushed back against Escudero’s opposition to holding caucuses ahead of the trial, saying the Senate operates by majority rule and no single senator, even the presiding officer, can dictate the process. If a majority of senator-judges agree to meet beforehand, Lacson said, that will proceed regardless of individual preferences.

Tensions over procedure escalated after the June 10 session, when Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa—an ally of the Vice President—moved to dismiss the impeachment complaint before the Senate had heard from either the defense or the prosecution. The motion triggered hours of constitutional debate and was ultimately blocked by the minority. It was later reframed as a motion to return the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives for certification.

In response, House leaders signaled that they would escalate the matter to the Supreme Court if the Senate proceeds with dismissal without a full trial.

Senator Aquilino Pimentel III, the outgoing minority leader, said the House would likely prevail in such a scenario. He argued that bypassing a trial would invite a Supreme Court ruling that could embarrass the Senate and force it to fulfill its constitutional role.

“My prediction is that they will most likely win, so it would be a slap in the Senate’s face if they would be lectured by the Supreme Court that they have no choice but to conduct the trial,” Pimentel told dwIZ.

He has consistently warned that dismissing the complaint without trial risks setting a dangerous precedent and eroding respect between the legislative chambers. He emphasized that the House, as representatives of the people, deserves full consideration in any impeachment process.

The Senate is scheduled to reopen on July 28, coinciding with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s State of the Nation Address. Deliberations on legislative and impeachment matters are expected to begin shortly after.

The Senate impeachment court is likely to convene in late July or early August once all senator-judges are sworn in. At that point, the Vice President’s formal response and any jurisdictional or procedural motions will be addressed.