File

Many Filipinos are closely watching the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, which is set to begin on July 6. It remains one of the country's most divisive political issues, with public opinion deeply split.

That is precisely why many believe the presiding officer must be impartial. Recently, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian has been giving interviews and issuing statements about his preparations should he become the trial's presiding officer.

But this raises an important question. Sherwin Gatchalian as presiding officer?

There are those who object. Gatchalian is widely perceived as being aligned with the current administration. He is also viewed by some as politically close to groups that strongly support the impeachment of Vice President Duterte.

Gatchalian himself has acknowledged that impeachment is ultimately a political exercise. Whoever presides over the proceedings must balance the interests of both sides and ensure that the process remains fair and credible. With the country already deeply polarized, even the slightest perception of bias could inflame tensions further.

If the person leading the proceedings is widely perceived to be aligned with one political camp, the trial itself may struggle to command public confidence. Instead of appearing impartial, it could easily be viewed through a political lens. The danger is that the impeachment trial may be dismissed by many as nothing more than a scripted exercise with a predetermined outcome.

There is also the practical question of legal expertise. Gatchalian is not a lawyer. Presiding over an impeachment trial requires ruling on procedural objections, evidentiary issues, and complex constitutional questions that arise in real time. That presents a significant challenge for anyone without extensive legal training.

What this trial needs is a truly neutral figure—someone whose integrity is beyond question and who is not perceived to belong to either political camp. The country does not need another source of political instability. We already have enough divisions as it is.

It would also be preferable for the presiding officer to possess substantial legal experience and a thorough understanding of the procedural and evidentiary issues that will inevitably arise between the prosecution and the defense.

There are also reports and political speculation that certain groups within both the House of Representatives and the Senate are supporting Gatchalian because of his perceived political alignment. Others claim that he lacks an independent political center and simply follows the wishes of those in power.

If that is the public perception, then it is fair to ask why he is even being seriously considered for the position. Before the trial has even begun, questions are already being raised about his independence.

At the same time, there are also reports that other political groups are quietly promoting former Senator Kiko Pangilinan as an alternative presiding officer. According to these accounts, supporters of Pangilinan have been privately lobbying for his selection while criticizing Gatchalian's qualifications.

Is this really how we want to choose the person who will oversee one of the most consequential constitutional proceedings in recent Philippine history?

If the selection of the presiding officer is already clouded by political maneuvering and competing partisan interests, we should not be surprised if public confidence in the trial begins to erode even before the first witness takes the stand.

If there is even the slightest reasonable doubt about the impartiality of the presiding officer, then perhaps that alone should be enough to disqualify any candidate from consideration.