Impeachment votes don’t always haunt senators, history shows

MANILA, Philippines — As political tensions build ahead of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, one question continues to surface in public discussions: Will senators who vote one way or another eventually pay a political price?

The assumption is familiar in Philippine politics. Many believe voters remember defining moments and eventually punish public officials who take unpopular positions during national controversies.

Article continues after this advertisement

But a look at one of the country’s most consequential impeachment episodes suggests the relationship between impeachment votes and electoral fortunes may not be that straightforward.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

An analysis by University of the Philippines Diliman associate professor and Inquirer data scientist Dr. Rogelio Alicor Panao, based on news reports and Commission on Elections data, examined what happened to senators involved in the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada. It found little evidence that a single impeachment vote determined long-term political survival.

The findings come as the Senate prepares to hear the impeachment case against Duterte, a process that has already generated intense public debate, legal questions and political maneuvering.

Looking back at Estrada’s impeachment

Panao’s analysis focuses on one of the most controversial moments of the Estrada impeachment trial in January 2001.

At the center of the dispute was the so-called second Jose Velarde envelope, which prosecutors alleged contained evidence relating to a bank account linked to millions of pesos associated with Estrada.

Article continues after this advertisement

A vote to open the envelope would have allowed the evidence to be examined during the trial. A vote against opening it would have kept it out of the proceedings.

The motion failed by a single vote, 11-10.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: The rise and fall of Joseph Estrada: From people’s champion to disgraced president

The immediate consequences were dramatic. Public outrage followed, helping trigger the protests that culminated in Edsa II and eventually Estrada’s removal from office.

At the time, many viewed the 11 senators who voted against opening the envelope as having made a politically costly decision. Two decades later, however, the electoral record tells a more complicated story.

Many returned to public office

What happened to the 11 senators who voted against opening the envelope? According to Panao’s analysis, the answer is not what many might expect.

“Of the 11 senators, four eventually returned to the Senate, one secured a local elective position, and another was succeeded in office by his son,” he noted.

Among them were Miriam Defensor Santiago, who returned to the Senate in 2004 after losing her reelection bid in 2001; Juan Ponce Enrile, who returned in 2004 and won again in 2010; Gregorio Honasan, who won a special Senate election in 2001 and later secured victories in 2007 and 2013; and Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, who returned to the Senate in 2010 after losing in 2007 and eventually became Senate president.

Panao also pointed to the cases of John Henry Osmeña, who later won as mayor of Toledo City, and Ramon Revilla Sr., whose Senate seat was later occupied by his son, Bong Revilla.

RELATED STORY: Edsa 2’s lessons for Sara Duterte trial from Joseph Estrada’s fall

Just as notable, he found that relatively few of the remaining senators suffered clear electoral defeats.

“Of the remaining six, only two actually sought elective office again and failed,” Panao wrote. “Others accepted appointments, retired, or simply left electoral politics.”

The pattern, he added, was not confined to senators who voted against opening the envelope.

“The pattern is not limited to those who voted ‘No,’” Panao wrote.

Even among senators who supported opening the envelope, there was no obvious electoral windfall. Loren Legarda lost her vice presidential bid in 2004, while Raul Roco’s presidential campaign that same year was unsuccessful.

“In other words, even those aligned with the push for accountability did not clearly translate their position into durable electoral advantage,” Panao said.

Elections are rarely about one vote

Panao’s analysis suggests that the broader political environment matters as much as, if not more than, a senator’s position on a single impeachment vote. Part of the explanation, he wrote, “may lie in the political environment itself.”

While Estrada faced serious allegations and mounting political pressure during the impeachment proceedings, he was not universally unpopular.

“Estrada was weakened, but he was not universally unpopular,” Panao noted.

Citing Social Weather Stations data, he pointed out that by December 2000, in the middle of the impeachment proceedings, Estrada’s net satisfaction rating remained positive at +9, with 44 percent of Filipinos saying they were satisfied with his performance and 35 percent dissatisfied.

Panao further noted that “opposition was concentrated in Metro Manila and among more affluent sectors, while support among poorer Filipinos remained relatively resilient.”

That context, he argued, complicates assumptions about how voters respond to impeachment-related decisions.

“This bit of history complicates expectations in the vice president’s impeachment,” Panao wrote.

“If senators who voted against opening the envelope under a president facing corruption allegations and declining support were still able to return to elected office, it suggests that the political cost of an acquittal vote may be limited rather than decisive,” he added.

Still, the analysis stops short of claiming that impeachment votes do not matter politically. Rather, it suggests that electoral outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond a single vote cast during a highly charged political moment.

As Panao concluded: “Political memory is uneven. Politics shifts, alliances matter, and it seems Filipino voters rarely judge elections through a single vote or a single moment.”

Why the question matters now

The historical comparison comes as attention remains fixed on the upcoming impeachment trial of Duterte.

The House of Representatives transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate after 257 lawmakers voted in favor of the complaint, with 25 voting against and nine abstaining.

The Senate convened as an impeachment court on May 18, although the actual trial phase has yet to begin. Under the process, both parties are first required to submit pleadings and participate in pretrial proceedings.

Duterte is facing impeachment articles that include allegations related to confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery and betrayal of public trust.

Her legal team has asked the Senate impeachment court to dismiss the case, arguing that the articles are “constitutionally infirm, procedurally defective, and substantively deficient.”

READ: Sara Duterte to Senate: Junk impeachment raps

Meanwhile, questions surrounding Senate attendance, voting thresholds and internal leadership disputes have fueled public interest in how the proceedings will unfold.

Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V recently urged senators to resolve internal conflicts to avoid delays, saying that “the most important of these is the constitutional obligation of impeachment.”

READ: Senate urged to end row to avoid Duterte impeachment trial delays

Sen. Erwin Tulfo has said the impeachment trial is expected to begin on July 6.

Whether the eventual verdict will influence future elections remains impossible to know. What Panao’s analysis does show is that Philippine political history offers little support for the idea that a senator’s fate is determined by a single impeachment vote.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The record of the Estrada impeachment suggests that while such votes can become defining moments in national politics, voters often evaluate politicians through a much wider lens when Election Day arrives. /dm

RELATED STORY: Questions raised on impeachment trial: Can absent senators vote?