Charter experts urge Senate to proceed with Duterte impeachment trial
SENATOR-JUDGES Senators—or the majority of them—finally get to don their judges’ robes that have been ready since March and take their oath as members of the impeachment court on June 10, 2025, with Senate President Francis “Chiz’’ Escudero serving as presiding officer. — NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
MANILA, Philippines — The country’s oldest and most authoritative voice on constitutional law has urged the Senate to proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, reminding senators that the accountability of public officials should not be thwarted by procedural inventions or partisan maneuvering.
“At stake is not merely the fate of one official, but the integrity of the Constitution itself. Impeachment is the people’s mechanism to enforce Accountability of Public Officials. It must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver,” the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), led by its chairman, retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, said in a statement.
Key concerns highlighted
Philconsa issued the statement after the Senate convened as an impeachment court but opted to remand the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives, citing alleged “constitutional infirmities” that needed to be addressed.
The supposed “constitutional infirmities” were raised by the Duterte bloc, staunch allies of Vice President Duterte and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
Among the issues cited was the lack of certification, which Philconsa argued is neither required by the Constitution nor supported by established impeachment practice.
Four key constitutional concerns were raised by the Senate’s remand:
- Grave abuse of discretion – Whether the Senate unlawfully suspended its jurisdiction, already validly acquired as an impeachment court.
- Encroachment on the House’s exclusive power – Whether requiring the House to certify compliance with the one-year ban infringes upon the House’s sole prerogative under Article XI, Section 3 of the
Constitution. - Circumlocutory delay – Whether imposing novel requirements not found in the Constitution or Senate rules constitutes a circumlocutory device designed to delay or defeat the trial.
- Due process and impartiality – Whether raising possible defenses on behalf of the respondent compromises the impartiality of the Senate as an impeachment court.
Philconsa reminded the Senate that once convened as an impeachment court, its jurisdiction “cannot be lost or suspended by mere procedural acts.”
Citing the 1997 case of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, Philconsa said, “jurisdiction, once validly acquired, is not lost by subsequent happenings. It continues until the case is finally resolved or dismissed.”
It also pointed out that the principle of continuing jurisdiction has been an established practice, including during the impeachment trial of former US President Bill Clinton.
House certifications and clarifications
The House of Representatives has since adopted a resolution certifying that the impeachment complaint against Duterte complies with constitutional requirements. However, it deferred acceptance of the articles of impeachment until the Senate responds to clarificatory questions submitted by the House prosecution panel regarding the remand order.
Vice President Duterte, who faces allegations including corruption and plotting to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has denied all wrongdoing and dismissed the impeachment efforts as politically motivated. If the trial proceeds and results in her conviction, she could be removed from office and face a lifetime ban from holding public office.
Public reactions
The Senate’s decision has sparked public outcry, with protests erupting outside the Senate complex and various groups decrying the move as a betrayal of the Constitution. Malacañang has distanced itself from the controversy, stating that the President is not involved in the Senate’s deliberations, but emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures./mcm/dm/abc
