House prosecutors have raised concerns regarding the participation of detained Senator Jinggoy Estrada in the upcoming impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Manila Third District Rep. Joel Chua and Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co stated on Friday that Estrada’s physical absence due to his detention on plunder charges could hinder his ability to serve effectively as a senator-judge.
Why lawmakers are questioning Estrada’s role
House prosecutors argue that physical presence is essential for the integrity of the impeachment process. Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the prosecution panel, questioned how a senator can fulfill the duties of a judge without being physically present to observe witness testimony. “How can he participate in the impeachment trial if he could not be physically present during the impeachment hearings?” Chua asked during the launch of the Bantay Impeachment campaign in Quezon City. Rep. Renee Co, the spokesperson for the House prosecution, echoed this sentiment, stating that in the public eye, “nothing beats physical presence” for ensuring quality participation in the proceedings.
What is the current status of the impeachment trial?
The Senate officially convened as an impeachment court on May 18, with the full trial scheduled to open on July 6. According to Rep. Co, Senate impeachment rules remain unchanged, and there is no indication that existing restrictions on the detained senator’s participation will be lifted. Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who is currently detained over a non-bailable plunder charge related to alleged kickbacks from flood control projects, has dismissed the concerns. In a statement provided by his staff on Friday, Estrada labeled the arguments against his participation as “premature.” He noted that the issue remains unresolved while his own Senate suspension proceedings are still pending.
What could happen next?
The role of a detained senator in an impeachment trial remains a point of legal uncertainty. Because the Senate impeachment rules have not been amended to address this specific scenario, the court may be forced to issue a formal ruling on whether remote participation or physical absence is permissible once the trial begins on July 6. If the court maintains that physical presence is a requirement, Estrada could be prevented from casting a vote or participating in the trial, unless his detention status changes prior to the proceedings.
