Senate President Chiz Escudero (NPC) has defended the Senate’s decision to remand the Duterte impeachment complaint to the House as a procedural safeguard, though the timing has drawn institutional and public scrutiny. Image Source: Facebook (Chiz Escudero)

In a procedural maneuver that reflects deeper strategic calculations, the Philippine Senate—acting as an impeachment tribunal—voted on June 10, 2025, to return the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives. Senate President Chiz Escudero, who led the 18–5 vote in favor of the remand—a margin widely interpreted as aligning with political timing—claimed the complaint lacked formal certification of sufficiency from the House. Although the Senate had already issued a summons, typically signaling jurisdiction, the vote strongly suggests support for delaying proceedings until a more Duterte-aligned Senate is seated. Escudero described the move as a procedural safeguard.

In the history of Philippine impeachments, this step is highly irregular. In both the Joseph Estrada (2000) and Renato Corona (2012) cases, the Senate accepted the articles of impeachment and began proceedings immediately upon House transmittal. Returning the complaint after issuing a summons contradicts past practice and injects fresh uncertainty into a system already under strain.

Returning the complaint after issuing a summons contradicts past practice.

A Calculated Clock Reset

The Senate’s decision drew swift backlash. On June 11, House prosecutor Gerville Luistro rejected the remand as unconstitutional, stating, “No one can stop this anymore, because jurisdiction has been acquired already by the impeachment court.” She asserted that the complaint had already met all legal requirements. Nevertheless, the House has now deferred further action on the remanded complaint, indicating that it will revisit the matter after the 20th Congress convenes on July 28.

Condemnation also came from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, which called the Senate’s action a “betrayal of the Constitution.” Civic groups similarly warned that the chamber's move undercuts its role as a neutral tribunal. This pushback is particularly notable given that it was a group of Catholic priests who initially filed one of the central impeachment complaints against Duterte, citing corruption, abuse of power, and a moral duty to pursue accountability. The remand has therefore been seen not only as a procedural disruption, but as a retreat from institutional responsibility under sustained public scrutiny.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines called the Senate’s action a “Betrayal of the Constitution.”

Archbishop Socrates Villegas of Lingayen-Dagupan called the delay in Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial “a sin.” Image Source: CBCP News from Father Soc YouTube

Implications for Democratic Accountability

While the impeachment complaint itself involves allegations of grave threats and questionable disbursement of over ₱612 million in confidential funds, these charges have become secondary to a larger institutional test.

At issue is not merely Duterte’s guilt or innocence, but whether the impeachment process remains a viable mechanism for accountability. If the Senate’s action sets precedent, future proceedings may be stalled through procedural rewinds, turning technicalities into shields against scrutiny. This threatens to transform the Senate from a constitutional check into a political buffer.

The synchronization of legal timelines with political advantage introduces a dangerous precedent—where electoral outcomes, not institutional duty, dictate constitutional action. This dynamic risks eroding the boundary between law and politics, weakening the very foundations of democratic governance.

If convicted, Duterte would be removed from office and barred from future positions, ending her prospects for a 2028 presidential bid. An acquittal, particularly one handed down by a Senate reshaped in her favor, may deepen perceptions of impunity and institutional bias.

For now, the process stands at a crossroads. The Senate’s decision may ultimately be remembered not for its legal basis, but for its political resonance. The weeks ahead will reveal whether the chamber chooses to uphold its constitutional duty or retreats into partisan accommodation. Either way, the Duterte impeachment has become a measure of how far Philippine democracy can be stretched—and whether it can hold.

REFERENCES

Al Jazeera. (2025, February 12). Philippines agency recommends charging VP Sara Duterte over alleged plot. https://www.aljazeera.com/

AP News. (2025, June 10). Senators return the impeachment case against Sara Duterte to the Philippine House. https://apnews.com/

Bloomberg. (2025, May 18). Sara Duterte wants impeachment trial to go on, sees 'bloodbath'. https://www.bloomberg.com/

CBCP News. (2025, June 11). Archbishop warns delaying Duterte impeachment a ‘grave sin’. https://cbcpnews.net/

KnowSulu. (2025, May 27). Sara Duterte’s Impeachment: A Pivotal Moment in Philippine Politics. https://knowsulu.ph/

LawPhil. (1987). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. https://lawphil.net/

Reuters. (2025, June 11). Prosecutors in Philippine VP's impeachment say trial must proceed. https://www.reuters.com/

South China Morning Post. (2024, December 26). Philippine VP Duterte’s US$10 million snack-name scandal recipe for impeachment. https://www.scmp.com/