The Senate’s decision to return the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives is more than just a procedural hurdle—it is a defining moment for the integrity of the country’s constitutional processes. While critics argue that the move effectively stalls the impeachment trial, the Senate’s insistence on adherence to legal requirements underscores the fundamental principle that due process must prevail over political expediency.
With an 18-5 vote, the Senate impeachment court opted to send the articles back to the House, citing concerns over constitutional infirmities in the complaint. The motion, introduced by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, requires the House to certify that the impeachment process did not violate Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which prohibits multiple impeachment proceedings against the same official within a year.
This decision has placed the impeachment trial in a precarious position. While Senate President Francis Escudero insists that the move does not equate to dismissal, opposition senators argue that it is a functional termination of the case. Senator Risa Hontiveros, one of the five who voted against the motion, warned that the remand is merely a procedural excuse to delay accountability.
The primary issue cited by senators who voted for the return was the alleged unconstitutional handling of impeachment complaints by the House. VP Sara’s allies argue that the House deliberately froze weaker impeachment complaints to prevent her from benefiting from the one-year immunity rule. This, they claim, violates the constitutional provision that ensures fair and timely impeachment proceedings.
Additionally, the Senate’s motion demands that the House confirm its willingness to pursue the impeachment trial, a requirement that further complicates the process. Critics argue that this places an unnecessary burden on the House, which had already transmitted the articles in accordance with established procedures.
Despite the setback, the House retains the ability to refile the impeachment case, provided it can address the constitutional concerns raised by the Senate. The lower chamber may amend the articles to clarify procedural compliance and ensure that the impeachment process remains valid under constitutional scrutiny.
However, the political reality is far more complex. The House leadership, which initially approved the impeachment complaint, now faces the challenge of reaffirming its commitment to the case. If lawmakers fail to act decisively, the impeachment effort could lose momentum, allowing VP Sara to evade trial altogether.
The impeachment process is one of the most serious constitutional mechanisms available to hold public officials accountable. It cannot be rushed, nor can it be weaponized for political gain. While the Senate’s decision may frustrate those eager to see VP Sara face trial, it reinforces the importance of ensuring that every step of the process is legally sound.
A flawed impeachment case, no matter how politically charged, risks undermining the credibility of the very institutions meant to uphold justice. If the House is truly committed to pursuing accountability, it must take the necessary steps to correct any procedural defects and ensure that the impeachment complaint stands on solid constitutional ground.
In the end, adherence to due process is not a mere technicality—it is the bedrock of a functioning democracy. The weight of the impeachment trial demands nothing less than strict compliance with legal requirements, lest it be reduced to a political spectacle rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
