鈥榃himsical, despotic, arbitrary鈥�: Prominent lawyer slams Senate return of case vs Sara Duterte
Atty. Lorna Kapunan and Vice President Sara Duterte. Composite image from Inquirer files.
MANILA, Philippines — The Senate formally convened as an impeachment court on June 10, only to vote hours later to send the case back to the House of Representatives.
Eighteen senators voted in favor of a motion, originally filed by Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and amended by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, to return the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte. Only five opposed it.
The motion asked the House to clarify whether it had violated the one-year bar on filing more than one impeachment complaint, and whether the next Congress would still pursue the case.
READ: Impeachment court sends Sara Duterte case back to House
But for Lorna Kapunan, a veteran and well-known lawyer, the Senate’s move was not only premature. It was also, she said, unconstitutional.
“It is not a practical solution. It is an unconstitutional solution and an error, error of judgment,” she told prominent political journalist Christian Esguerra in an episode of Facts First.
“Practicing lawyers wouldn’t just call that an error of judgment. It is whimsical, it is despotic, it is arbitrary, and it is not supported by any constitutional provision nor by their own Senate rules.”
Trial duty, not defense duty
For Kapunan, the Senate’s vote undermined the principle of due process and preempted the very proceedings it was mandated to conduct.
“But there is no such animal as a dismissal. It is very clear in the Constitution and in the rules, it is a trial. And trial means presentation of evidence,” she said.
“The dismissal could have been part of the defense of VP Sara and her counsel in the answer, and presented during the trial. Then there could be a third decision—a conviction, acquittal, or dismissal. But this is after trial and hearing on the evidence,” she added.
Kapunan noted that under the impeachment rules, once the Senate convenes as an impeachment court, the next step is the reading of the Articles of Impeachment, followed by the respondent’s answer and a full trial.
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano moves to amend the motion on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, hours after the Senate convened as an impeachment court on January 10, 2025.
She emphasized that the issues cited in the Senate’s motion, such as alleged constitutional infirmities, should have been raised in Vice President Duterte’s formal response, not preemptively debated by the Senate itself.
“Trial will follow… after the respondent, dito si Vice President Sara Duterte, ay binigyan ng pagkakataon to file her answer,” (after the respondent—Vice President Sara Duterte in this case—is given the opportunity to file her answer), Kapunan said.
“At ’yung nag-amend, lahat ’yan para silang nag-argue ng defense lawyers.”
(Those who amended the motion all acted like they were arguing for the defense.)
She added that any claim that the complaint should be dismissed could have been part of the vice president’s answer, followed by the prosecution’s reply, as provided for in the rules.
“In the answer, the defense lawyers… the lawyers for VP Sara Duterte could have raised that as a defense, that the petition or the complaint for impeachment should be dismissed.”
‘Walang remand sa Konstitusyon’
Among the five senators who voted against returning the complaint were Senators Risa Hontiveros and Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, who both questioned the legal ground and potential consequences of the move.
“Wala pong remand o return sa Konstitusyon. Ang obligasyon natin: try and decide. Isa itong kabalintunaan, Mr. Presiding Officer,” Hontiveros said during the session.
(There is no remand or return in the Constitution. Our obligation is to try and decide. This is a travesty, Mr. Presiding Officer.)
Hontiveros had also cautioned:
“I cannot accept this kind of wording. It is dangerous and disingenuous, particularly when the rules of court have suppletory application. The same purpose could have been achieved by merely asking the House prosecutors to file a compliance and clarify certain issues.”
READ: Why 5 senator-judges voted against returning Duterte case to House
Senator Pimentel, a former Senate President and bar topnotcher, called the action illogical and legally untenable.
“Walang concept ng return to sender sa mga legal proceedings. Sa postal office meron pero sa legal proceedings sa korte walang ganon,” he told reporters in an ambush interview.
(There is no concept of ‘return to sender’ in legal proceedings. That exists in the post office, but not in court.)
“Kaya nga inuulit ko kanina, bakit ba natin ipinipilit na dismissal, remand, return, or any other synonym na nagbibigay ng mental picture na meron kaming sinasauli o binibitawan ng Senado ang impeachment case. That is the problem. Pero gustong gusto nila eh, so sila na ang magpapaliwanag sa taong bayan.”
(Why are we insisting on terms like dismissal, remand, return, or anything that creates the impression that the Senate is returning or relinquishing the impeachment case. That is the problem. But they really want it, so they will be the ones to explain it to the people.)
Constitutional procedures already satisfied?
Kapunan emphasized that the complaint had been validly transmitted by the House and bore the signature of over 215 lawmakers, with 20 more later adding their names.
“Isn’t that a certification by the House that they have read, verified, and those procedures have been followed?” she said.
READ: Sara Duterte impeachment court opens, but raps ‘remanded’ to House
She disputed the Senate’s claim that the presence of multiple complaints violated the constitutional one-year bar, pointing out that only one had been officially adopted through a direct one-third vote of the House—an option explicitly allowed under impeachment rules.
“There is only one impeachment complaint. The earlier three… became moot and academic,” Kapunan said. “When they [the House] signed, there is a certification that they read the complaint and that it is, to their personal knowledge, they affirm the contents thereof. So, [why remand it]? It does not need to be remanded.”
“[Just ask the] House, do you stand by your certification? Do you stand by your verification? Do you stand by your signatures that you have complied with the procedure? It is a simple letter to the House. It does not have to wait for the 20th Congress.”
The bigger issue: public accountability
Kapunan also took aim at senators who claimed that impeachment was not relevant to the struggles of ordinary Filipinos. During the session, Senator Bong Go, who voted in favor of returning the complaint to the House, said:
“Hindi naman nakakain itong impeachment.”
(This impeachment won’t put food on the table.)
He urged his colleagues to instead focus on what he described as more pressing concerns.
“Hustisya sa tamang paraan at serbisyo na makakatulong sa mga Pilipino […] Mag-focus sana tayo sa pangunahing mandato ng lehislatura, ang gumawa ng mga batas at magsulong ng mga programa na tunay na tutugon sa mga pangangailangan ng ating mga kababayan lalung-lalo na po ang mga mahihirap at walang ibang malalapitan kundi ang gobyerno.”
(Justice in the right way and services that truly help the Filipino people […] We should focus on the legislature’s main mandate: to craft laws and promote programs that meet the real needs of our people, especially the poor who have nowhere else to turn but the government.)
Pimentel, who voted against the motion, pushed back on this framing.
“Marami namang bagay sa buhay na importante rin na hindi nahahawakan tulad ng hustisya. Ang hustisya, di nga natin makita ’yan, di natin mahawakan ’yan, pero napakahalagang bagay po sa buhay ng tao.”
(There are many important things in life that we can’t touch—like justice. You can’t see it or hold it, but it is essential to human life.)
Kapunan echoed this sentiment in her interview. She argued that the very social issues some senators raised—such as poverty, hunger, and poor access to education—should not be used to deflect from the need for an impeachment trial.
In fact, she said, these problems are symptoms of a deeper issue: the lack of accountability among those in power.
While some lawmakers claimed the proceedings were political and irrelevant to daily struggles, Kapunan noted that it was senators themselves who politicized the session through their speeches.
She acknowledged the line, often repeated by critics of the trial, that “impeachment won’t put food on the table,” but countered that such thinking misses the point.
“Precisely, that is what the impeachment is all about. Why are the people hungry? Why do the people lack good education? Because of the accountability issue,” she said.
She added that the complaint speaks directly to the alleged misuse of public funds and that public officials must be held to account for how taxpayer money is spent.
Kapunan stressed that impeachment is not disconnected from the needs of ordinary Filipinos, as some senators had implied.
“These are all issues of corruption and misappropriation of public funds used for private interests. That precisely is the heart of this impeachment issue,” she said.
Legal remedy and the question of partiality
Asked what could be done to counter what she described as a “whimsical, despotic, and arbitrary” act by the Senate, Kapunan said legal remedies remain available, starting with the Supreme Court.
“You can go to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Supreme Court for grave abuse of discretion of the Senate,” she said.
Kapunan argued that the Senate had no authority under the Constitution or its own rules to delay the reception of evidence once it had convened as an impeachment court.
“Klaro-klaro naman sa rules. Walang animal called a dismissal. It is trial to convict or trial to acquit. In both instances, it needs trial,” she said.
(The rules are crystal clear. There’s no such thing as dismissal in this context. It’s either trial to convict or trial to acquit. In both instances, it needs trial.)
She emphasized that the rules require a continuing trial, not one that could be suspended and passed on to the next Congress.
“There is no such term as a crossover to the 20th Congress,” she said. “Once you start a trial, a trial continues until the completion of the evidence, consideration of the evidence presented, and rendition of judgment by the court.”
Kapunan argued that the prosecution should have been given the opportunity to address any constitutional questions during the impeachment trial itself, not sidelined by a procedural maneuver.
“The prosecution here was not given any chance to speak on the issue of constitutional infirmity,” she said. “That’s more than two-thirds. That’s an extraordinary majority of the House. Why is there still a need to remand to the House?”
She maintained that once the impeachment court was convened, all arguments—including constitutional defenses—should have been presented through proper trial procedure.
She argued that even if the Senate had questions, it did not need to delay the process and wait for the 20th Congress. Instead, it could have sought clarification without halting the proceedings.
For Kapunan, the most troubling aspect was the conduct of the senator-judges themselves.
“Parang sila na ang nag-act [as] defense lawyers. This should have been the argument for the defense,” she said.
(It’s as if they acted as defense lawyers. This should have been the defense’s argument.)
“So, where is their oath of office? They just, earlier this afternoon, took an oath of office for impartial, impartial administration of justice. How is that impartial?” she continued.
“Well, clearly, they were partial to the defense.”
RELATED STORIES:
Diokno tells Senate: Judges not allowed to make motions
Sara Duterte’s office receives impeachment court summons
The House panel that will prosecute Sara Duterte: A brief glance
