House defers receipt of remanded impeach complaint

Case constitutional, House certifies

MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives yesterday deferred acceptance of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, shortly after adopting a resolution certifying that the impeachment proceedings initiated on Feb. 5, 2025 fully complied with the Constitution.

House Deputy Majority Leader Faustino Dy V moved to defer acceptance of the remanded Articles until the Senate as an impeachment court “has responded to the clarificatory queries” raised by the House prosecution team.

Deputy Speaker Robbie Puno, presiding over the session, repeated Dy’s motion and ruled Resolution 2346 approved. It moved to direct the issuance of a certification.

Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro of the prosecution team admitted that they were confused with the orders of the impeachment court.

“With respect to the first order, about the certification pertaining to our compliance with the Constitution pertaining to the filing of the impeachment court, we maintain our position. We complied fully and strictly with the requirements of the Constitution,” she said.

Luistro said the House prosecutors did not violate the one-year prohibition rule.

“With respect to the second order, it is impossible to be complied with because first of all, the 20th congress doesn’t exist yet.  We are still in the 19th Congress,” Luistro stressed, pertaining to the Senate order for the 20th Congress to confirm that it will pursue the case.

At the same time, Luistro said the impeachment trial of Duterte is now inevitable following the delivery of summons.

“The impeachment trial is pushing through. No one can stop this anymore because jurisdiction has been acquired already by the impeachment court over the person of the respondent,” she said.

“Apparently, she has a period of 10 days to answer. That is non-extendable,” Luistro added.

Members of the House prosecution panel also attended an interfaith mass yesterday, wherein the Articles of Impeachment were carried to the altar like offerings.

Dribbling the case

With much dribbling and passing related to the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte, Sen. Risa Hontiveros could not help but compare the proceedings to Philippine basketball.

“We already debated about what ‘forthwith’ means. Do we need to debate what ‘return’ is? This is not the correct procedure for the impeachment trial, especially since we already convened as an impeachment trial court. It should not be backwards. We are not the PBA (Philippine Basketball Association) finals,” she told dzBB yesterday.

“Why did it lead to this? We are an impeachment court. That’s why you probably heard that I was really dismayed, because after a prolonged dribbling of the impeachment, it was suddenly passed back to the House. We should be moving forward,” she added.

Hontiveros, one of only five senators who voted against the return, said there was no need to send the Articles of Impeachment back to the House since the required clarifications could have been requested directly from House prosecutors.

She also cautioned against ambiguous and misleading language in the motion, noting that some senators referred to “suspension” and “lack of jurisdiction” – terms she said hint at a functional dismissal of the case.

Meanwhile, former senator Antonio Trillanes IV lauded Hontiveros and the four other senators – Koko Pimentel, Nancy Binay, Grace Poe and Sherwin Gatchalian – who “fought for the interest of our democracy.”

Gatchalian, for his part, admitted that “we are going on uncharted territory, where we do not know the next steps.”

According to senator-elect Panfilo Lacson, who served as senator-judge during the impeachment trial of the late chief justice Renato Corona, only Duterte’s defense team could move to dismiss the impeachment case, not any of the senator-judges.

“I cannot imagine a judge presiding over a case being the one to move to dismiss. Isn’t it funny to hear a judge moving to dismiss a case he himself is trying?” Lacson said.

Court or cult?

Incoming ML party-list Rep. and House prosecutor Leila de Lima described the remanding of the Articles of Impeachment back to the House a “stain to the Senate,” as she slammed the shamelessness of senators.

“What is this, a court or a cult?” De Lima asked.

Incoming Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno, also a member of the House prosecution panel, said the Senate basically abandoned the Constitution by what transpired last Tuesday.

“The Constitution is not only a piece of paper. That is the order of the people. You cannot just throw it in the trashcan or just (be) taken for granted. We are really worried with what the Senate did,” he added.

Camarines Sur 3rd district Rep. Gabriel Bordado Jr., who helped endorse the third impeachment complaint, slammed the Senate for insulting the House – its co-equal body, with the remanded Articles of Impeachment.

“I did not expect that this will happen and after the verbal gymnastics of Senate President Francis Escudero, I was expecting that they would really tackle the impeachment trial,” he said.

The Makabayan bloc likewise blasted the Senate for further delaying the impeachment trial, which should have started in February.

“The Senate’s action is unparalleled in violating the Constitution. They cannot return the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives because we have already done our role,” ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro, Gabriela Women’s Party Rep. Arlene Brosas and Kabataan party-list Rep. Raoul Manuel said in a joint statement.

Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua questioned the senators who voted to remand the impeachment case back to the House, whether they are having an “identity crisis.”

“This is not within the mandate of our senators – to file in the defendant’s behalf and decide on its fate,” he said.

‘Betrayal’

The Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), one of the groups that filed an impeachment complaint against Duterte, said the Senate made a disingenuous maneuver that functionally dismisses the impeachment case against Duterte.

“This is a betrayal of its constitutional duty and a clear attempt to shield a high-ranking official from accountability,” UPLM chairman Antonio Azarcon and UPLM spokesman Arvin Dexter Lopoz said in a statement.

Veteran lawyer Romulo Macalintal noted that the 18 senators’ display of partiality to Duterte could be a valid ground for inhibition in the impeachment trial.

“The majority of senators who voted to remand the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives have effectively acted as her defense counsel,” he said.

Former Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te, on the other hand, questioned the “conflicting” and “unprecedented” actions of the Senate on Tuesday. – Neil Jayson Servallos, Janvic Mateo, Mark Ernest Villeza, Evelyn Macairan, Mayen Jaymalin, Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Emmanuel Tupas, Louella Desiderio, Delon Porcalla