Senate’s Impeachment Remand: Constitutional Crime or Clever Cover?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 11, 2025

THE Philippine Senate’s 18-5 vote on June 10, 2025, to fling Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment articles back to the House of Representatives is a brazen act of political sorcery. Masquerading as a “compromise” to uphold constitutional sanctity, this procedural Houdini act—orchestrated by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano—reeks of evasion, not integrity. With no constitutional footing for a “remand,” the Senate’s gambit teeters on the brink of a constitutional coup, threatening a separation-of-powers meltdown and igniting accusations of backroom sabotage. Let’s rip apart the farce, clash over the arguments, expose the ethical rot, and demand justice.

1. Unmasking the Chaos: Constitutional Betrayal or Sly Sidestep?

Is This a Full-Blown Constitutional Crisis?

The 1987 Philippine Constitution lays it out in black and white: the House initiates impeachment, and the Senate tries and decides (Article XI, Sections 3(1) and 3(6)). The word “remand”? Nowhere to be found. Senate Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros nails the scandal: “Wala pong remand o return sa konstitusyon. Ang obligation natin, try and decide,” as quoted in the Philippine News Agency report. By conjuring a procedure from thin air, the Senate risks hijacking the House’s exclusive initiation power and shirking its trial duty. UP Law’s Professor Paolo Tamase brands it a “violation of constitutional structure,” warning of a “ping-pong precedent” that could let chambers dodge accountability forever, per Rappler’s coverage.

Defenders like Cayetano spin it as a cautious move to ensure the House didn’t sidestep the one-year bar on multiple impeachments (Article XI, Section 3(5)), citing potential delays in earlier complaints, per the PNA article. But this is a flimsy excuse. Only the Supreme Court, not the Senate, can police the House’s constitutional compliance, as legal scholar Dante Gatmaytan underscores in Rappler. By playing constitutional cop, the Senate blurs the lines between co-equal branches, inviting chaos. This isn’t caution—it’s a power grab wrapped in procedural doublespeak.

Why Pull This Stunt Now?

Philippine impeachment history offers zero precedent for this maneuver. The 2000 Joseph Estrada trial imploded after a prosecution walkout, not a Senate remand, per Wikipedia’s overview. The 2012 Renato Corona conviction marched through a clean trial, no detours, as noted in the Re: Corona Retirement Benefits, (A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC, January 12, 2021). Even Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s failed impeachments never saw the Senate meddling with House filings. So why invent a remand now? The timing—Duterte’s 2028 presidential run on the horizon and her feud with President Marcos Jr. escalating—screams political motive, as Reuters reports. This isn’t legal ingenuity; it’s a calculated stall to shield an ally or sabotage a rival.

2. Battle of Titans: Duty Shirked or Delay Justified?

For Remand: Principled Stand or Pathetic Cop-Out?

Supporters paint the remand as a noble defense of constitutional purity. Cayetano argues it ensures the House didn’t flout the one-year bar, safeguarding the process’s legitimacy, per the PNA report. Senator Jinggoy Estrada, scarred by his father’s impeachment drama, insists it’s about “following each step in the Constitution” to avoid arbitrary rulings, as quoted in the same PNA article. Senator Francis Tolentino links it to the congressional transition, claiming the 20th Congress (starting July 2025) can handle it “cleaner” since impeachment acts don’t carry over, per the PNA coverage. Cayetano shrugs off the delay, estimating a mere “four days” before the new Congress acts.

But this defense collapses under scrutiny. The Constitution doesn’t task the Senate with auditing the House—that’s the Supreme Court’s job, as Gatmaytan notes in Rappler. The “new Congress” excuse is baseless; nothing in the Constitution stops the 19th Congress from proceeding. And Cayetano’s “four days” claim? Pure fiction when the 20th Congress is weeks away, potentially burying the case in political quicksand. This isn’t principle—it’s a cowardly dodge cloaked in constitutional sanctimony.

Against Remand: Constitutional Treason and Power Grab

Critics torch the Senate’s move as a betrayal of its mandate. Hontiveros labels it a “functional dismissal,” stressing the Senate’s duty to “try and decide,” not play procedural ping-pong, per the PNA report. Tamase warns it sets a toxic precedent for endless deflections, gutting impeachment as an accountability tool, per Rappler. The minority bloc—Hontiveros, Pimentel, Binay, Poe, and Gatchalian—argues the Senate could’ve sought clarifications without remanding, like requesting a House compliance report, as Hontiveros suggests in the PNA article. Instead, the vague motion breeds “unnecessary ambiguity,” undermining due process.

The separation-of-powers argument is devastating. By remanding, the Senate acts as the House’s overseer, trampling the Constitution’s design of co-equal branches. Gatmaytan’s point that only the Supreme Court can settle constitutional disputes exposes the Senate’s hubris, per Rappler. This isn’t a misstep—it’s a dangerous power grab that could paralyze future impeachments, letting corrupt officials skate free.

3. Ethical Inferno: Political Hit Job or Accountability Slaughter?

Weaponized Impeachment or Whitewashed Justice?

Duterte’s camp screams political assassination, claiming Marcos-allied forces are weaponizing impeachment to derail her 2028 presidential bid. The timing—post-rift with Marcos Jr.—bolsters their case, as Reuters notes. Meanwhile, protesters outside the Senate roar that “accountability was murdered in broad daylight,” viewing the remand as a soft dismissal to shield Duterte from graft and corruption charges, per the Daily Tribune. Both sides smell blood: one sees a witch hunt, the other a whitewash. The truth? A Senate caught in a political crossfire, opting for a procedural escape to dodge the fight.

Senate’s Credibility in Ashes

The Senate’s impartiality is on life support. Senator Ronald Dela Rosa’s Facebook post hailing the 18-5 vote as a “Holy Spirit-guided victory” oozes bias, especially after his push for outright dismissal, as quoted in the PNA report. Estrada’s nod to his father’s impeachment feels more personal than principled. Cayetano’s “compromise” reeks of backroom deals. With 18 senators—many Duterte loyalists—backing the remand, the Senate’s role as an impartial impeachment court is in tatters. This isn’t justice—it’s a political circus run by loyalists.

4. Battle Plan: End the Constitutional Charade

Supreme Court Must Crush the Chaos

The Supreme Court is the last line of defense against this constitutional travesty. Duterte’s pending petition challenging the House’s actions offers a chance for clarity. The Court must rule fast on whether remands are constitutional and if the Senate overstepped, potentially leaning on precedents like Francisco vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003). Without a decisive ruling, Congress could rewrite impeachment rules on a whim, torching checks and balances. A landmark decision is urgent to slam the door on this procedural madness.

Public and Media Must Ignite a Firestorm

If this is a veiled dismissal, call it out. Media, civil society, and watchdogs must hammer the Senate to justify its dodge. Why remand instead of try? What’s the real delay? Expose the deals fueling this farce. Protesters must keep the pressure blazing, demanding accountability for Duterte’s alleged crimes and the Senate’s complicity. Transparency is the weapon to slay this constitutional con.

House Must Strike, Not Stall

The 20th Congress can’t let this case rot. Refile, revise, or drop the complaint—but act decisively. Endless delays only feed the narrative of political theater. If the House believes Duterte’s impeachment is justified, it must deliver ironclad articles, daring the Senate to duck again.

Conclusion: Remand or Runaway?

The Senate’s midnight vote to remand Sara Duterte’s impeachment is no stroke of genius—it’s a gutless retreat from constitutional duty. By inventing a procedure to dodge a trial, the Senate courts crisis, trashes separation of powers, and shatters public trust. Cayetano’s “compromise” is a cop-out, Dela Rosa’s holy victory lap a disgrace. This isn’t about integrity; it’s politics crushing principle. The Supreme Court must intervene, the public must revolt, and the House must fight. Otherwise, impeachment becomes a toothless relic, and accountability a casualty of Manila’s power games. Kweba ng Katarungan demands a reckoning.