An inflection point represents a crucial moment of change, a turning point where a significant shift in direction or trajectory occurs. It's a time when something suddenly, or in a meaningful way, alters course, marking a departure from the previous trend or state.

On Monday, June 9 — in response to public clamor — the Senate voted unanimously to commence the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, ending widespread speculation that it would sidestep its constitutional duty. Senate President Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero took his oath as presiding officer of the impeachment court.

On Tuesday, June 10, the 23 senators of the outgoing 19th Congress took their oath as judges of the impeachment court. After passing the rules that will govern the trial, it was reported that “the Senate Impeachment Court has decided to return the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives but “without dismissing or terminating the case.” The vote was 18 to five, with no abstentions. The dissenting votes were cast by Senators Binay, Gatchalian, Hontiveros, Pimentel, and Poe.

According to the Bulletin’s Senate reporters: “(Senator Koko) Pimentel lamented the decision…noting that the motion clearly contains dangerous language susceptible to a lot of interpretations. He also mentioned that the motion communicates with a body which is not yet in existence, pertaining to the 20th Congress. (Senator Risa) Hontiveros agreed to this and said that the wording of the approved motion introduces unnecessary ambiguity to the already politically-charged proceedings.”

After these developments, another inflection point may have been reached.

Recall two previous inflection points in recent history: First, the impeachment trial of then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada; and second, the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.

These inflection points reflect the volatility of Philippine politics since the imposition of martial law more than 50 years ago.

President Estrada was replaced by his erstwhile Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo after a dramatic turn of events in early 2001. Here’s the report filed by Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post:

“Manila, Jan. 21 — The Philippine military withdrew its support for former president Joseph Estrada, hastening his dramatic weekend downfall, after mid-level officers threatened to use force to arrest him, current and former military officers said today.

“The threatened coup, which could have led to a bloody conflict with military units loyal to Estrada, helped persuade the country's armed forces chief and other senior commanders to switch allegiance to a fast-growing opposition movement headed by the vice president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the sources said.

“There were groups ready to take offensive action, said a senior officer familiar with the situation. He said top commanders, including armed forces chief Gen. Angelo Reyes, ‘recognized that if they didn't side with the opposition, the military would fracture and they could have a very violent situation on their hands…This was not really 'people power,' said one retired general involved in the plan to arrest Estrada. It would be more accurate to call it a coup.”

Now let’s flash back to the events that led to the second inflection point: the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona that resulted in his conviction and removal from office. These lend credence to the proposition that impeachments are primarily political in nature. Unlike a criminal trial, impeachment is a process for removing an official from office due to conduct deemed unsuitable for public service. It involves political bodies, like the House of Representatives and the Senate, who weigh the facts and decide on the charges, not a neutral judge.

In “Inside the JBC: The appointment of the Chief Justice in 2010,” GMA News Online published a detailed account written by Marites Dañguilan Vitug on what transpired in the corridors of power before the appointment of Renato Corona as Chief Justice. The impending retirement on May 17, 2010 of then Chief Justice Reynato Puno was the context of Ms. Vitug’s story. The constitution prohibits the President from appointing anyone two months before the presidential election up to the end of her term.

“(Rep. Matias) Defensor noted that since the retirement in April 1988 of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee till the appointment in December 2006 of Chief Justice Puno, “there never was a vacuum, not for a day, in the position of Chief Justice.” He argued that, “at all times,” there should be a “functioning Supreme Court.” By this, he meant a full Court, with a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. That same afternoon after the JBC meeting, Defensor met with President Arroyo but he said he never discussed his proposal with her…(W)hat mattered most to Malacañang was that there was “no opposition” from outgoing Chief Justice Puno. “It could have made a difference if he opposed it,” explains (Executive Secretary Eduardo) Ermita, who was tasked with briefing the press weekly and, in the process, dampening and even skirting controversies.

The Supreme Court ruled on March 17, 2010 that the ban on appointments does not cover the judiciary. The contemplated appointment of Renato Corona as Chief Justice, vice Puno, was actualized when President Arroyo chose him from the final list of nominees and inducted him into office on May 17, 2010, or 44 days before the end of her term at noon on June 30, 2010.

Fast forward to Dec. 12, 2011. With 188 out of 285 or 66 percent of its membership, the House of Representatives approved Corona’s impeachment. The Senate convened as an impeachment court on Dec. 14 and served summons on Corona, requiring him to answer seven articles of impeachment, most of which involved “betrayal of public trust.”

The trial commenced on Jan. 16, 2012. There were nine trial days in January; 17 trial days from Feb. 1 to 29, 2012; and 12 trial days in March before the Senate as an impeachment court took a break in April before resuming in May.

The trial eventually focused on Article 2 which alleged that Corona “failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution” and that this omission constituted “betrayal of public trust and/or culpable violation of the Constitution.”

On May 29, 2012, the impeachment court voted on Corona’s fate. Twenty senators found him “Guilty”; three senators declared him “Not Guilty.” The three were then Senators Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Miriam Defensor Santiago and Joker Arroyo.

The 20 senators who adjudged him “Guilty” were, in alphabetical order: Juan Edgardo Angara, Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Franklin Drilon, Francis Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada, TG Guingona, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Serge Osmeña, Francis Pangilinan, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Bong Revilla, Tito Sotto, Antonio Trillanes, and Manny Villar. Senate President Enrile also voted “Guilty.”

Out of the 20 senators who voted in 2012 to convict Corona, six are now serving as judges in the Sara Duterte impeachment trial: Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Escudero, Estrada, Lapid, and Legarda. They will be joined in the 20th Congress that convenes in July by four returning senators: Bam Aquino, Ping Lacson, Kiko Pangilinan and Tito Sotto.

What will be the House of Representatives’ response to the Senate’s latest move? We join the citizenry in anticipating the emergence of another inflection point.