Why Senate President Win Gatchalian Could Effectively Preside Over an Impeachment Court Even Though He Is Not a Lawyer

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

The other evening, habang nanonood ako ng iba’t ibang news reports at political commentaries tungkol sa impeachment proceedings in youtube, napansin kong halos pare pareho ang tanong ng mga commentators, legal analysts, at maging ng ordinaryong Pilipino.

“Dapat bang abogado ang mamuno sa impeachment court?”

Habang pinapakinggan ko ang bawat argumento, bigla akong napaisip.

Baka mali ang tanong nating lahat.

Perhaps the better question is not whether the presiding officer is a lawyer.

Perhaps the better question is this.

Who can best preserve the integrity of the impeachment court and strengthen the confidence of the Filipino people in one of the most sacred constitutional processes of our democracy?

The more I reflected on that question, the more I realized that the Constitution has never been protected by professions alone.

It has always been protected by people of integrity.

Kung gusto talaga ng ating Constitutional Commission na abogado lamang ang maaaring mamuno sa impeachment court, napakadali sana nilang isinulat iyon sa ating Constitution. Ngunit hindi nila ginawa. I believe that omission was intentional. The framers understood that constitutional leadership cannot be measured solely by professional titles. It must also be measured by fairness, wisdom, institutional maturity, sound judgment, and the courage to place the Republic above politics.

That is the very essence of constitutional democracy.

An impeachment trial is unlike any ordinary judicial proceeding. Hindi ito isang criminal case kung saan iisang hukom lamang ang magpapasya. It is a constitutional process entrusted to the Senate, where every senator becomes an impeachment judge. Every senator hears the evidence. Every senator evaluates the constitutional arguments. Every senator casts an independent vote according to the Constitution, the evidence presented, and his or her own conscience.

The presiding officer performs a different responsibility.

He preserves order.

He recognizes motions.

He ensures that both parties are heard.

He protects due process.

Most importantly, he safeguards the dignity of the institution while allowing the Senate itself to exercise its collective constitutional judgment.

That distinction is important because the strength of an impeachment court has never depended upon one individual.

Its strength has always rested upon the integrity of the institution.

History has repeatedly reminded us of this truth.

The impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada forever changed Philippine politics. The impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona tested the delicate balance between law and politics. The constitutional controversy involving former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno reminded us that institutions are judged not only by the decisions they render but by the fairness and credibility of the process that produces those decisions.

Looking back, history rarely remembers every legal argument.

History remembers whether our institutions became stronger or weaker after every constitutional crisis.

Perhaps that is why today’s impeachment proceedings carry a weight far greater than the fate of one public official.

The Filipino people are quietly asking themselves one simple question.

Can we still trust our institutions?

For me, that question is far more important than asking whether the presiding officer carries the title “Attorney.”

This is where Senator Sherwin Gatchalian deserves thoughtful consideration.

Not because he is the only qualified senator.

Not because he is perfect.

But because, over the years, he has cultivated the reputation of a legislator who values preparation over spectacle, governance over grandstanding, and public policy over political theater.

His years in local government, the House of Representatives, and the Senate have given him extensive experience in legislative deliberations, committee investigations, constitutional discussions, and parliamentary procedures. Those experiences may not make him a lawyer, but they have certainly prepared him to preside over difficult proceedings with discipline, restraint, and fairness.

There is another reason why I believe Senator Gatchalian deserves serious consideration.

The discussion should not revolve solely around legal education.

It should also consider mastery of legislative procedure.

An impeachment court is not merely a legal proceeding.

It is a Senate proceeding governed by constitutional principles, Senate rules, parliamentary traditions, and institutional discipline.

Philippine legislative history reminds us that mastery of legislative rules has never been the exclusive domain of lawyers.

One of the finest examples is former Senate President Tito Sotto.

Despite not being a lawyer, he earned enormous respect from colleagues across political lines because of his extraordinary command of parliamentary rules, legislative procedure, and floor management. Throughout his years as Senate President, he demonstrated that effective leadership of the Senate depends not merely on legal education but on institutional wisdom, fairness, decisiveness, and a profound understanding of the Senate as an institution.

Personally, if not for the present political dynamics involving Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and the realities surrounding the current composition of the Senate, I would even consider former Senate President Tito Sotto as one of the strongest personalities to preside over an impeachment court despite not being a lawyer. His mastery of Senate rules alone would have inspired tremendous public confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.

It is from that same perspective that I now look at Senator Sherwin Gatchalian.

What he brings to the table is not merely legislative experience.

What he brings is the possibility of strengthening the institutional credibility of the impeachment court itself.

Justice must not only be done.

Justice must also be seen to be done.

Kapag ang taumbayan ay nagsimulang magduda sa proseso, kahit gaano pa kaganda ang magiging desisyon, mananatiling may agam agam ang publiko. The legitimacy of an impeachment court depends not only on the correctness of its rulings but also on the confidence of the people that every step of the process was conducted fairly, independently, and without undue political influence.

This observation should never be interpreted as a personal criticism of former Senate President Francis Escudero who recently joined the new majority. Every public servant deserves fairness, and every public official deserves the presumption that he will faithfully perform his constitutional responsibilities.

However, constitutional governance teaches us another equally important principle.

Institutions are judged not only by actual impartiality but also by the appearance of impartiality.

Whether fair or unfair, former Senate President Escudero has inevitably become part of various political narratives surrounding the present national situation. That reality is not necessarily of his own making. It simply comes with the office and the political environment in which he serves.

If there exists a constitutionally permissible way to further strengthen public confidence in the impeachment court, then I believe the Senate should seriously consider it.

For me, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian offers exactly that opportunity.

His greatest contribution may not be that he is a non lawyer.

His greatest contribution may be that his leadership could lend greater institutional integrity to the impeachment proceedings.

Because he has generally maintained a reputation for measured leadership, policy driven governance, and less polarizing public engagement, his designation as presiding officer could elevate the public perception that the Senate is placing institutional credibility above political personalities.

This is not about saying that one senator possesses more personal integrity than another.

This is about asking a far more important constitutional question.

Who can best strengthen the integrity of the institution?

Sometimes leadership is not about choosing the most popular person.

Sometimes it is not even about choosing the most legally trained person.

Sometimes leadership is about choosing the person whose presence gives the nation greater confidence that the process itself will remain fair, dignified, and worthy of public trust.

That, for me, is Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian’s greatest qualification.

One hundred years from now, I doubt history books will tell our grandchildren whether the presiding officer of the impeachment court was a lawyer or not.

History is never that interested in professional titles.

History remembers something far greater.

It remembers whether, at one of the most difficult moments of our democracy, the Senate had the courage to choose the path that strengthened public trust rather than political convenience.

If Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian is indeed the person who can best elevate the integrity, credibility, and public confidence of the impeachment court, then I believe the Senate should seriously consider entrusting him with that responsibility.

Because institutions are never protected by titles.

They are protected by integrity.

And when integrity leads, the Constitution wins.

When the Constitution wins, every Filipino wins with it.

#DJOT

________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 1.57M

Pride, Truth, and the Strength of a Nation: Reflections After Watching Jack Ryan

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

“Pride shouldn’t enter into affairs of state. But part of our job is to give our nation pride, to uphold the ideal of who we are and who we wish to be at any cost. But if that ideal is based on lies, then our institutions begin to crumble, making us susceptible to division, even infiltration. When I returned home, I was broken, but then I met someone who brought me back. I will always have faith in the light, faith in the men and women who hold the spears, the ones who are brave enough to poke holes in the dark.”

— James Greer, Jack Ryan: Ghost War

When I watched Jack Ryan together with my daughter Juliana Rizalhea upon the recommendation of Congressman Dok Bong Acop of the Second District of Antipolo City, I honestly expected an entertaining political action series about espionage, covert operations, and international terrorism. Given Congressman Acop’s extensive experience in social welfare and public service, I assumed there was a deeper reason behind his recommendation. I was right. As the series progressed, I realized that Jack Ryan was not merely about intelligence gathering or geopolitical conflicts. It was a story about the soul of government, the burden of leadership, and the moral responsibility carried by those entrusted with protecting a nation. The explosions, tactical operations, and intelligence missions were impressive, but they were not what stayed with me after the final episode. It was the closing words of James Greer.

Those few sentences contained more wisdom about governance than many lengthy books on political science. They spoke not only to intelligence professionals but to every public servant, every elected official, every government employee, every citizen, and every nation struggling to preserve democracy while confronting the realities of power. The first sentence immediately captured my attention: “Pride shouldn’t enter into affairs of state.” I paused. Those words are remarkably relevant not only to fictional governments but also to the political realities we witness today in the Philippines.

One of the greatest dangers confronting any democracy is when government decisions become driven by personal pride instead of national interest. Pride manifests itself in many forms. Sometimes it appears when leaders refuse to admit mistakes despite overwhelming evidence. Sometimes it appears when political rivals become more interested in defeating one another than solving national problems. Sometimes it appears when public officials become obsessed with protecting their image rather than protecting public trust. Sometimes it appears when government agencies refuse to acknowledge weaknesses because they fear criticism. Pride, when mixed with power, becomes a dangerous political disease.

Unfortunately, we are seeing many of these tendencies in Philippine politics today. Instead of healthy political competition, we increasingly witness permanent political warfare. Every issue immediately becomes partisan. Every investigation is interpreted as political persecution by one side and political justice by the other. Every government accomplishment is dismissed by critics, while every criticism is dismissed by supporters. Truth becomes secondary, while political victory becomes primary. The unfortunate casualty is public confidence.

Government was never intended to function this way. Public office was never designed to become an arena where personalities matter more than institutions. The Constitution did not establish a government to glorify politicians. It established institutions designed to serve the Filipino people. This is where James Greer’s next statement becomes even more powerful: “But part of our job is to give our nation pride, to uphold the ideal of who we are and who we wish to be.”

This statement distinguishes two completely different kinds of pride. There is personal pride, and there is national pride. Personal pride seeks recognition, while national pride seeks respect. Personal pride protects reputation, while national pride protects institutions. Personal pride demands applause, while national pride earns public trust. The responsibility of every government official is not to become popular. It is to make the people proud of their country.

Citizens should wake up every morning believing that justice is still possible, that government still works, that corruption is punished, that honesty is rewarded, that competence matters, that merit still exists, and that the law applies equally to the poor and the powerful. That is national pride.

Sadly, many Filipinos have slowly become cynical. Ask ordinary citizens today what they think about government, and many immediately answer with words like corruption, bureaucracy, political dynasty, patronage politics, selective justice, and endless political conflict. That alone should concern every public servant. The greatest danger facing a democracy is not criticism. The greatest danger is when citizens stop expecting government to become better. Because once hope disappears, democracy begins to weaken from within.

As Greer continued, he uttered what I believe is the philosophical center of the entire series: “But if that ideal is based on lies, then our institutions begin to crumble, making us susceptible to division, even infiltration.” Those words should not merely be admired. They should be studied.

Institutions are built on credibility. The Supreme Court exists because people believe in justice. Congress exists because people believe legislation can improve society. The Executive exists because citizens trust government to faithfully execute the law. Law enforcement agencies exist because people believe they will protect rather than oppress. The Armed Forces exist because citizens trust them to defend the Republic. The intelligence community exists because people believe someone is watching threats long before those threats reach the public.

But what happens when lies become acceptable? What happens when statistics are manipulated? What happens when corruption is normalized? What happens when investigations become selective? What happens when appointments prioritize loyalty over competence? What happens when social media narratives become more influential than verified facts? The answer is exactly what Greer described. Institutions begin to crumble.

The Philippines is currently experiencing one of the most politically polarized periods in its recent history. The impeachment controversies, the continuing power struggle inside the Senate, the accusations surrounding government spending, the controversies over flood control projects, the continuing concerns over the West Philippine Sea, the proliferation of online disinformation, the rise of political influencers replacing informed public discourse, and the increasing tendency to judge issues based on personalities instead of constitutional principles all point to a deeper institutional challenge. Whether one agrees or disagrees with particular political positions is not the central issue. The more fundamental concern is whether our institutions continue to enjoy the confidence of the Filipino people.

Our greatest challenge today is not merely electing better leaders. It is rebuilding trust in the institutions themselves. Administrations change. Presidents change. Senators change. Congressmen change. Cabinet Secretaries change. But institutions must survive beyond every administration. The Republic cannot depend on personalities forever. It must depend upon institutions.

One lesson I have repeatedly emphasized in many of my own writings is that intelligence is not merely about identifying enemies. True intelligence identifies weaknesses before they become national crises. It warns decision-makers before disasters occur. It reveals vulnerabilities before adversaries exploit them. Unfortunately, modern threats no longer arrive carrying rifles. They arrive carrying algorithms, fake news, cyber attacks, economic pressure, organized criminal networks, transnational syndicates, psychological operations, and carefully crafted disinformation campaigns designed to divide citizens against one another. The objective is simple: destroy trust. Because once citizens lose confidence in institutions, external enemies no longer need to invade. The nation begins weakening itself.

That is why I have always believed that the intelligence community should never be viewed simply as collectors of information. Its true mission is to preserve national resilience. It must detect corruption that threatens governance. It must detect organized crime before it infiltrates institutions. It must identify foreign influence operations before they distort democratic processes. It must provide policymakers with truthful assessments, not politically convenient assessments. Truth is the oxygen of intelligence. Without truth, intelligence becomes propaganda. Without truth, policymaking becomes guesswork. Without truth, democracy slowly suffocates.

Perhaps the most beautiful part of Greer’s reflection comes near the end: “When I returned home, I was broken, but then I met someone who brought me back.” Leadership has invisible wounds. Many public servants quietly carry emotional burdens that citizens never see. Police officers, soldiers, teachers, doctors, judges, intelligence officers, civil servants, and even ethical politicians often sacrifice far more than the public realizes. Many endure criticism despite acting with integrity. Many grow weary from serving institutions that sometimes fail to reward honesty. This sentence reminds us that even those entrusted with protecting the nation remain human beings.

Nations, too, can become broken. The Philippines has experienced political crises, natural disasters, economic difficulties, corruption scandals, insurgencies, pandemics, and periods of deep political division. Yet somehow the Filipino people continue moving forward. Not because we are perfect, but because there are still people quietly rebuilding hope every single day.

Finally, Greer says: “I will always have faith in the light, faith in the men and women who hold the spears, the ones who are brave enough to poke holes in the dark.” Those words deserve to become a philosophy of public service. The light is truth. The darkness is deception. The spears represent courage.

Who are these men and women? They are ethical intelligence officers who refuse to show synthetic reports. They are investigators who follow evidence regardless of political affiliation. They are prosecutors who value justice over publicity. They are judges who remain faithful to the Constitution. They are journalists who verify before publishing. They are teachers who educate rather than indoctrinate. They are auditors who refuse to sign fraudulent documents. They are civil servants who reject bribery. They are soldiers who remember that their loyalty belongs to the Constitution and the Filipino people. They are ordinary Filipinos who continue choosing integrity even when corruption appears easier. These are the people who keep democracy alive.

Watching Jack Ryan reminded me of something I have gradually realized after years of writing about governance, constitutional reform, intelligence, and public administration. The Philippines does not simply need better politicians. We need stronger institutions. We need leaders humble enough to admit mistakes. We need citizens mature enough to distinguish facts from propaganda. We need government agencies courageous enough to tell the truth even when it is politically inconvenient. We need intelligence organizations whose loyalty is to the Republic rather than to personalities. Most importantly, we need a renewed culture of integrity.

Corruption is not defeated merely by passing more laws. Disinformation is not defeated merely by creating more regulations. Political division is not healed merely by changing administrations. Constitutional reforms alone, while important, cannot transform a nation whose institutions have lost the confidence of its people. Everything begins with truth. Everything begins with humility. Everything begins when personal pride gives way to national purpose.

As I finished the movie with my daughter who helps me with the taking of notes. I realized that James Greer’s narration was never really about intelligence operations. It was about civilization itself. A nation survives not because it possesses the strongest army or the largest economy. It survives because enough men and women still believe that truth matters, integrity matters, institutions matter, and public service remains a sacred trust.

That is the kind of pride that belongs in the affairs of state. Not the pride that glorifies individuals, but the pride that inspires an entire nation to become worthy of its own ideals.

And perhaps that is the challenge before the Philippines today. May we never lose faith in the light. May we continue supporting the men and women who hold the spears. And may we always find the courage to poke holes in the darkness before the darkness consumes the institutions we are all sworn, in our own ways, to protect.

#DJOT

________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 1.65M