The second rest week of Sara Duterte's impeachment trial saw just as much buffoonery and clownish antics as in the previous week. What can be expected when the entire Philippine government is one big circus tent? Impeachment court presiding officer Senator Francis Escudero offered up an interesting statement on his podcast. He said he will refuse the office of Vice President if Sara is convicted.
![]() |
| https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/10/26/2565680/chiz-refuse-vp-post-if-vp-sara-convicted |
Impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero on Sunday expressed full confidence in the fairness of the ongoing impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte, while categorically declaring that he would refuse the vice presidency if she is convicted and removed from office.
Under the Constitution, if the vice presidency becomes vacant, the President nominates a replacement from the members of Congress.
With several critics and analysts alleging that Escudero may have been offered to replace Duterte if she is convicted, he stated that accepting such a nomination after serving as a senator-judge would be a massive ethical breach.
“I will not accept it because of a simple reason. Conflict of interest. We were the ones who decided. That does not seem right,” Escudero said in his podcast, arguing that it is highly inappropriate for a judge to take the seat of the official they just ousted.
While noting that no official offer has been made, Escudero emphasized that his preemptive refusal is a strict personal conviction.
“I am not refusing something that is not offered... But even if offered, I will not accept it. And I hope it does not come to that so nothing will be accepted,” he added.
When asked if the trial is proceeding fairly, Escudero said he remains strictly neutral.
“I think it is fair,” Escudero said. “I don’t have a decision; I have not decided yet.”
Escudero stressed that while the court may sometimes appear heavier-handed toward the prosecution, it is only because the burden of proof entirely rests on them.
Escudero also cautioned his fellow senator-judges against relying on public surveys to determine the fate of Vice President Duterte, reminding the chamber that the public has only heard the prosecution’s side of the impeachment trial.
“It must not be based on it (surveys), it should be based on evidence,” Escudero said in his podcast. “It’s not right. We should not have gone to trial if we would just base it on surveys. We could have just had a survey, and then voted.”
He urged both the court and the public to reserve judgment until the defense has its turn. With the House prosecution officially resting its case, the defense is scheduled to begin presenting its evidence on Nov. 9.
Escudero confirmed it is highly possible for the trial to conclude before the year ends, though the final timeline depends heavily on how many witnesses the defense calls and the length of the ensuing cross-examinations.
Meanwhile, Escudero also defended the court’s decision to relax the Senate’s sub judice rule, or gag order, after prosecutors withdrew three of the four impeachment articles against Duterte.
Because those three charges were officially dismissed from the trial, the Vice President will no longer have a formal venue to defend herself against them on the Senate floor.
To compensate, Escudero explained that the court loosened the gag order so Duterte and her camp can publicly address the dropped allegations without fear of being cited in contempt.
Who asked him? No one. He made that statement unprovoked. But why? To provethat he is an unbiased and therefore ethical man? Funny that coming from a man who faces an ethics complaint in the Senate over an alleged ₱30-million campaign donation received from government contractor Lawrence Lubiano during the 2022 elections. That complaint may have stalled in the Senate but it didn't prevent him from being ousted as Senate President by Senator Sotto. And that is not to mention all the other complaints against him for graft, plunder, and malversation of funds.
If Escudero is making a preemptive declaration of refusing the office of VP why not the rest of the Senate? Perhaps everyone should display how ethical they are by issuing a statement declaring they would refuse the office of VP is Sara is convicted.
Note that Escudero defends the relaxation of the Senate’s sub judice rule so the defense can address the three withdrawn articles of impeachment. That means Sara will not be able to formally defend herself against those allegations.
His comments about the fairness of the trial are also interesting. He is the presiding officer and yet he cannot tell if the proceedings have been fair? How can be be undecided on such a thing? He then says that "the court may sometimes appear heavier-handed toward the prosecution" "because the burden of proof entirely rests on them." How is that fair? Shouldn't each side be treated in the same manner? The defense has made more than a few procedural blunders which the court has failed to reprimand such as not submitting a verified witness list, misleading cross examinations, focusing on technicalities rather than substance which has only served to prolong the trial, and violating the court's sub-judice rule by holding press briefings publicly characterizing the articles of impeachment as having "inherent constitutional infirmities" and commenting on trial developments while hearings were actively ongoing. Was it fair to not reprimand them or is Escudero up in the air on the matter?
Senator Cayetano, a man with his own legal troubles and controversies, agreed wholeheartedly with Senator Escudero's statement.
![]() |
| https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/778972/cayetano-urges-peers-to-reject-vp-post-if-sara-duterte-is-convicted |
Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano on Monday called on his fellow senator-judges to commit to rejecting the vice presidency if Vice President Sara Duterte is convicted in her impeachment trial and removed from office.
In a Facebook post, Cayetano backed Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s declaration that he would turn down any offer to take over the vice presidency should Duterte be convicted.
“This is right! All of us Senator-Judges should make this declaration,,” Cayetano said.
“It’s essential that in all impeachment proceedings (especially of Presidents and Vice Presidents), Senator-Judges are politically neutral and will have no incentive to convict except for evidence that proves the article/s of impeachment,” he added in his post.
In fact he said every Senator should make a public declaration they would reject the position of Vice President if offered should she be convicted. That didn't sit well with other Senators who singled him out and apparently forgot it was Escudero who said it first.
![]() |
| https://mb.com.ph/2026/10/26/senators-alan-cayetano-call-on-vp-position-premature-uncalled-for |
Some senators on Monday, October 26 said described the call made by Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano for senators to reject any possible offer to be the Vice President as “premature” and “uncalled for.”
Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said Cayetano’s call was “uncalled for” precisely because the President has the prerogative to choose who should be nominated to the position in the event Vice President Sara Duterte is convicted in the impeachment trial.
“Why would he question the President’s prerogative to choose? Why is he being limited?” Lacson pointed out to reporters during an interview at the sidelines of the Senate’s budget hearing.
"I think it’s uncalled for for him to get ahead of the President’s decision. It’s up to the President to choose,” he further said.
Asked if he is interested, Lacson replied in the negative: “I’m not interested. I will refuse if offered.”
Besides, Lacson said the prerogative of the President to choose who is going to be the Vice President in the event the incumbent official is convicted is constitutional.
“He shouldn’t interfere. He should get ahead because it’s the President who will choose. Of course, subject to the confirmation of Congress. But don’t lead him,” he pointed out.
Sen. Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito said that while he considers Cayetano’s proposal as feasible, such pronouncements are premature.
“It’s too early. On my part, we shouldn't be discussing who will be the next vice president or will be appointed as vice president,” Ejercito said in a separate interview.
"The impeachment trial is still ongoing. As I said, we’re not even sure what would be the verdict of the impeachment court. It’s as if we are already sure of the outcome. It’s premature to talk about it,” the senator further said.
How did they forget impeachment court presiding officer Senator Francis Escudero was the first to make this declaration? Where is his condemnation for stepping on the President's prerogative and for being premature?
Even the Palace dogpilled on Cayetano declaring his call for fellow Senators to reject the offer of Vice President to be premature.
![]() |
| https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/1007318/palace-alan-cayetano-s-call-to-reject-vp-post-premature/story/ |
Malacañang on Tuesday said it was premature for Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano to urge his fellow senators to reject offers to become vice president should Vice President Sara Duterte be convicted in her impeachment trial.
Palace Press Officer and Undersecretary Claire Castro said the Office of the Vice President should be respected, noting that the impeachment trial was still ongoing and Duterte’s defense team had yet to present its evidence.
“First and foremost, the matter of replacing the Vice President should not be discussed at this time. It is highly premature. In my view, we should respect the Office of the Vice President,” Castro said in a press briefing in Cagayan de Oro City.
Castro urged senators to let the impeachment proceedings against Duterte run their course, saying President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. wanted due process to be observed before any discussion of succession.
“The impeachment trial is not yet over. Let the process take its course. That is, in fact, what the President wants—to let the process proceed and due process be observed," she said.
"So why discuss immediately who might replace the Vice President? The proceedings in the Senate have not yet concluded.,” Castro added.
Castro also said Cayetano should not dictate what his fellow senators should do or preempt the President's decision on the matter.
“He has no right to dictate what the senators should do, nor does he have the right to preempt the President’s decisions.,” she said.
Again, where is the condemnation of Escudero? He made the first move and Cayetano is only agreeing with him. It seems Cayetano, by expanding on Escudero's remarks, has hit a nerve. Are there Senators gunning for VP behind the scenes? Is this really political theater to rid the nation of Sara Duterte? Are the impeachment trial judges less neutral than they should be?
Of course Sara Duterte's camp had to pipe up about the issue. They called replacement talk a premature distraction.
![]() |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2332082/sara-dutertes-camp-calls-replacement-talks-premature-a-distraction |
Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp on Thursday dismissed discussions about her possible replacement as “premature” and called them a “distraction” from the “serious issues” surrounding her impeachment.
Duterte’s camp made the statement after several senators raised the issue, including Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, who recently urged his colleagues to reject any offer from Malacañang to take over the country’s second-highest post should the vice president be convicted.
“Discussions on possible replacements for the Vice President are not only premature, they are a distraction from the serious issues hounding the impeachment,” Duterte’s spokesperson Atty. Paolo Panelo Jr. said in a statement.
Panelo said these issues include the Senate Impeachment Court’s alleged lack of fairness and impartiality, the supposed unconstitutionality of lowering the threshold for conviction, and other due process violations such as the alleged denial of Duterte’s fair opportunity to refute Articles I and IV, as well as what he described as the Senate majority’s lack of outrage over the time and public funds purportedly wasted when the prosecution withdrew the two articles.
“These issues raise grave doubts as to whether a conviction by the Senate Impeachment Court, and any consequent attempt to install a replacement, would rest on any solid legal and moral foundation,” the lawyer claimed.
Panelo, in the same statement, also reiterated that replacing the vice president would not solve the country’s most urgent crises such as the soaring inflation, the worsening effects of the Super El Niño and the sharp slowdown in economic growth.
According to Panelo, the impeachment proceedings have only made it clear how the current administration prioritizes political maneuvering over issues “that matter most to ordinary Filipinos: putting food on the table, keeping the economy afloat, and securing the nation’s future.”
Spokesman Panelo has raised serious issues about the fairness of the trial now that three articles have been dropped. The prosecution could have really shot themselves in the foot. However, Sara has to be convicted before any of these issues are brought before the Supreme Court.
The prosecution continues to shrug off the Vice President's defense team objections to the dropped impeachment articles. They call it "just for social media."
![]() |
| https://mb.com.ph/2026/10/25/pang-socmed-chua-shrugs-off-vp-duterte-defense-teams-objections-to-dropped-impeachment-articles |
Just for social media.
That was how House prosecutor Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua described the objections raised by Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense lawyers over the Senate impeachment court’s decision to drop three impeachment articles against her.
Chua pointed out that Duterte's lawyers did not formally seek reconsideration of presiding officer Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero's ruling.
“See? That is why I said their complaints seem to be just for social media,” Chua said in an interview with DZRH over the weekend.
Chua was referring to the defense’s reaction to the impeachment court’s Oct. 13 decision to accept the prosecution’s withdrawal of the articles on confidential funds misuse, bribery and grave threats, leaving only the charge involving alleged unexplained wealth.
He recalled that Escudero had asked defense lawyer Sheila Sison during the hearing whether or not her manifestation questioning the prosecution's move should be treated as a motion for reconsideration (MR)
"If you listen to the proceedings of that impeachment hearing, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero actually raised that question," Chua said.
"He asked whether the manifestations of defense lawyer Sheila should be considered a motion for reconsideration. They said they were not," he added.
Escudero subsequently clarified that the ruling on the acceptance of the withdrawal could still be challenged through the proper procedures, including an MR raised by a senator-judge.
The defense had maintained that dropping the three articles should not restrict Duterte’s ability to present evidence or answer allegations already aired before the Senate. Sison, however, clarified that the defense was not opposing the withdrawal itself.
With this, the impeachment court limited the defense’s presentation of evidence to the remaining article II and lifted the sub judice restrictions on the withdrawn articles. This would allow public discussion of the allegations subject to the court’s rules on evidence disclosure, now that three of the four articles are off the table for controverting evidence.
Chua argued that the withdrawal narrowed the issues the defense must address in the trial.
"You know, we are all lawyers here, right? For one thing, there is no need to prove something that will no longer be discussed," he said.
He further noted that the withdrawal of the three articles does not constitute a finding that the underlying allegations were false. It means these will no longer be adjudicated in the current impeachment trial under the court’s ruling.
"Of course, we studied all four articles, but we only need a conviction on one to secure a conviction," Chua said.
He is so focused on the motion for reconsideration that he cannot see the forest for the trees. The real issues will arise if Sara is convicted. That is when the dropping of the articles and the lowering of the vote threshold will take center stage as she appeals to the Supreme Court. And if they overturn her conviction, well that's on the prosecution who are counting their chickens before they are hatched.
























