Uncertainty as Senate votes to return Sara Duterte's impeachment case to House

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial hit a major roadblock Tuesday night, June 10, as the Senate voted 18-5 to halt proceedings and require the House of Representatives first to prove the case is not unconstitutional. 

Through the vote, senators demanded that the House first prove it did not violate the Constitution, which bars initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a year.

The vote effectively puts the impeachment trial on hold even further — this, even as civil society groups and progressive organizations have denounced the Senate's alleged stalling of the proceedings. 

The vote took place well into the night during Tuesday's plenary session, after the senators were sworn in as judges for the impeachment trial, following a failed bid by Sen. Ronald dela Rosa to completely junk the case.

The initial motion was originally introduced by Dela Rosa, a staunch Duterte ally, who moved to dismiss the impeachment complaint entirely during a privilege speech, citing "constitutional infirmities."

However, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano amended Dela Rosa's motion that would return the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives "without dismissing or terminating the case" until constitutional compliance of the impeachment complaint could be verified.

Screengrab via Senate livestream

 The five who voted against the motion were Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel, Sen. Risa Hontiveros, Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, Sen. Grace Poe and Sen. Nancy Binay.

Those who will not be a part of the next Congress — and hence, will not serve as senator-judges upon the case's carryover — are Binay, Pimentel and Poe. 

Constitutional questions raised

The approved motion specifically requires two actions from the House:

• The House of Representatives must certify compliance with Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which states that "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." This includes providing clarification on the circumstances surrounding the filing of the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte in December 2024. 
• The House of Representatives of the 20th Congress must communicate to the Senate that it is willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.

The specific wording of the motion had to be written down during the session due to concerns from Pimentel and Hontiveros that the language — specifically the word "return" or "remand" — could be used to delay proceedings and functionally dismiss the case. 

Procedural concerns

The five senators who voted against the motion raised concerns about the wording and procedural implications of returning the case to the House.

Pimentel warned that the motion "clearly contains dangerous language susceptible to a lot of interpretations," noting the irony of the current Congress trying to communicate with "a body which is not yet in existence," or the 20th Congress.

Hontiveros said she "strenuously" voted against the motion because its wording "introduces unnecessary ambiguity to the already politically charged proceedings."

"It is dangerous and disingenuous," Hontiveros said. "The same purpose could have been achieved by merely asking the House prosecutors to file a compliance and clarify certain issues. There is no remand or return in the Constitution. Our obligation is to try and decide."

Gatchalian said his no vote was not about the constitutional merits but about transparency, arguing these issues should be discussed "in an open trial" where both prosecution and defense can present their arguments.

"In this way it will be transparent and there will be fairness and due process," Gatchalian said.

Poe echoed similar concerns, saying she preferred "hearing the arguments of the prosecution instead of just submitting a document." She also questioned whether the motion would be binding on the next Congress.

"Even if we have a motion like that, there is no guarantee. I don't think it's binding to say that the 20th Congress will take this up," Poe said.

How quickly the House can provide the required certifications will determine when, or if, the trial resumes during the current Congress, which adjourns sine die on June 14. 

The case would likely carry over to the 20th Congress that convenes in July.

The scheduled presentation of the articles of impeachment tomorrow will no longer take place, Escudero also clarified, as the articles of impeachment itself has been sent to the Senate rules committee chaired by Sen. Francis Tolentino.

"The presentation, therefore at this juncture would be rendered moot already because not only have we convened the impeachment court, we already issued a summons to the respondent-defendant," Escudero added.