Sara Duterte's trial: House prosecution seeks clarification to Senate order

MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution panel said it will defer receipt of the Senate impeachment court’s order, including the articles of impeachment, to issue a motion for clarification instead. 

This, the panel stressed, is in no way their rejection or acceptance of the order.  

But why respond this way? Rep. Gerville “JinkyBitrics” Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District) said the prosecution panel finds the order “quite unclear,” warranting clarification from the impeachment court. 

“To give way to our efforts to clarify first the order, in my opinion, I would defer receiving the articles of impeachment, including the order issued by the impeachment court,” she said at a press briefing on Wednesday, June 11. 

What is the Senate asking? For one, it wants the House of Representatives to issue a certification of the complaint’s non-violation of the one-year prohibition rule in the Constitution. 

The order pertains to the filing of four impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, an argument which Duterte allies have used to question the impeachment’s legality. 

Second, it asks the lower chamber of the 20th Congress, not the incumbent, to inform the Senate whether it is “willing and ready to pursue” the impeachment complaint. 

House prosecutor Gerville Luistro said the panel will be seeking clarification from the Senate impeachment court about the order to certify the articles do not violate the one-year ban rule of the Constitution. | via @domnqeflores pic.twitter.com/GICRXXg8rM

— Philstar.com (@PhilstarNews) June 11, 2025

Compliant complaint

Since Duterte was impeached by a House supermajority in February, Luistro said the prosecution panel has maintained its belief in the legality of the impeachment complaint they filed. 

“Sumunod po kami fully (We followed fully) and strictly to the requirements of the Constitution. We did not violate the one-year prohibition rule,” she said. 

Rep. Ysabel Zamora (San Juan, Lone District) also explained that the House complied with the Constitutional provision to include the impeachment complaints within 10 session days starting from when it was filed. 

This is different from calendar days, which refer to the usual 24 hours. Meanwhile, a session day could extend to a week or so. 

Zamora said that February 5, the date when the House included the complaints in the order of business, was the 10th session day before Congress went into break. 

She added that the fourth impeachment complaint is a consolidation of the first three, which is stated under the rules of impeachment as a possible mechanism in the filing and referral of complaints.  

Senate's contradiction

Regarding the second requirement, Luistro said “it is impossible to be complied with” because the 20th Congress does not exist yet.  

Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores (Bukidnon, 2nd District) pointed out how this order exhibits the Senate’s contradictory arguments. 

It contends that the 19th Congress cannot bind the 20th Congress to continue impeachment proceedings, but it also directs the House of Representatives of the 20th Congress to inform the Senate as to whether it will pursue the impeachment. 

“Sila na ang may sabi nu’n tapos sila din naglagay sa order nila. (They are the ones who said it and they are also the ones who indicated it in the order.) So if it is impossible to comply with such an order, how can we move forward if it is a condition of moving forward?” he said. 

Since such a move to return the impeachment complaint to the House is unprecedented, Rep. Marcelino “Nonoy” Libanan (4Ps Party-list), the lead prosecutor, said seeking a clarification is all the more necessary. 

“Hindi namin maintiindihan kung bakit ibabalik po ito sa amin. Ano po ang gagawin namin ay ‘yun po ang isang bagay na kailangan namin maliwanagan,” he added.

(We don't understand why it was returned to us. What we need to do is the one thing we need to be clarified about.)

No legal remedies for now

Individually, however, the prosecutors believe that the approved motion to remand the impeachment complaint is unconstitutional. 

“Kaya sinasabi namin na dapat it should be balewala lang ‘yung order na ‘yun kasi it’s impossible to do as of the time,” Flores added.  

(This is why we say that the order should just be disregarded because it’s impossible to do at this time.)

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a transmitted copy of the articles of the impeachment could be or should be done. What they argue, in their personal legal opinion, is that the Senate should hold the trial forthwith.    

When asked whether the panel will take legal action, Rep. Joel Chua (Manila, 3rd District) said they will await the impeachment court’s response to the clarification the panel seeks. 

“So, with respect to other legal remedies ay hindi pa namin ito napagdedesisyunan until such time mareceive namin ‘yung sagot sa clarification,” Chua said. 

(So, with respect to other legal remedies, we have not yet decided until we receive the response to the clarification we seek.)

To follow order if...

If the Senate’s clarification is “within the bounds of the law,” Luistro said that is the only time the prosecution panel will comply with the orders. 

She also believes that the Senate and House are only co-equal bodies as part of the legislative branch. 

However, since the Senate has constituted and convened itself as an impeachment court, the House prosecution panel becomes “obliged to comply” with the orders of senator-judges, just like in other courts. 

Despite the Senate’s order, the panel assured that the impeachment case is “very much active and alive.”

“No less than the order of the Senate last night stated that the case is not dismissed, not terminated,” Luistro said. 

Impeachment 'much alive'

Without a shadow of doubt, the House prosecution also said that the Senate has already acquired jurisdiction over the impeachment after it convened as a court and issued a writ of summons to Duterte. 

“This only shows: tuloy na tuloy ang impeachment trial,” Luistro added. (This only shows: the impeachment trial will surely proceed.)

The panel said it will be sending the motion for clarification to the impeachment court on Wednesday, just when Congress as a whole adjourns sine die. 

This is also based on the assumption that the Senate is a continuing body and that the impeachment proceedings should cross over into the 20th Congress. 

The ball is now back in the Senate’s court. But with a chamber that had been eager to tackle impeachment matters during session, its next moves are all the more crucial to due process and will be closely watched.