Impeachment is Not a Ritual: Why the Senate Must Defend Constitutional Due Process

By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

 

Former Senator Panfilo Lacson recently criticized certain senator-judges who moved to dismiss or remand the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte without a full trial. According to Lacson, such action is akin to a judge prejudging a case he is bound to hear. While this analogy may strike a rhetorical chord, it ultimately collapses under constitutional and jurisprudential scrutiny. It disregards the sui generis nature of impeachment proceedings and the Senate’s role not merely as a passive trial court but as a constitutional guardian of procedural due process.

I. The Senate as an Impeachment Court Is Not Bound by Rigid Judicial Norms

Impeachment is not a judicial proceeding in the traditional sense. It is a political process imbued with quasi-judicial features, guided more by constitutional design than courtroom formalism. As the Philippine Supreme Court held in Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003), impeachment is a constitutional remedy grounded in political accountability, not a criminal prosecution governed by the Rules of Court.

Article XI, Section 3(8) of the 1987 Constitution empowers the Senate to craft its own rules for trying impeachment cases. Thus, equating a senator-judge with a trial judge under strict judicial procedures is a legal error. A senator-judge sits not only as an adjudicator of law but as a constitutional actor of conscience and political judgment. That includes determining whether the House has met the constitutional requirements to transmit Articles of Impeachment in proper form and substance.

II. The Senate Has a Constitutional Gatekeeping Role

Contrary to Senator Lacson’s claim, a motion to dismiss or remand defective Articles of Impeachment is not prejudgment—it is constitutional stewardship. The Senate must first assess whether the Articles meet the threshold standards of sufficiency in form and substance under Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

This role has been affirmed in U.S. jurisprudence as well. In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court underscored the political—not judicial—nature of impeachment and deferred to the Senate’s judgment on how to proceed. Similarly, the Philippine Senate has both the authority and the obligation to reject impeachment referrals that fail to comply with constitutionally required procedures.

If the House transmitted Articles in violation of the one-year bar rule or without proper deliberation and voting, the Senate is not constitutionally bound to proceed. Upholding procedural integrity is not optional—it is imperative.

III. Dismissal or Remand Upholds Due Process, It Does Not Undermine It

To claim that remanding defective Articles is a denial of due process turns the principle on its head. Due process in impeachment requires that both the form and substance of the charges pass constitutional muster. If the Articles are facially defective, or if the process by which they were approved violated internal rules or constitutional standards, the Senate is duty-bound to reject them.

As seen in the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the Senate exercised care to ensure the sufficiency and verification of the Articles before trial commenced. The same diligence must apply today. Senator-judges who question the Articles’ procedural integrity are not violating due process—they are defending it.

IV. The Continuity Argument is a Red Herring

Much has been made of the fact that more than two-thirds of the senators from the 19th Congress will transition into the 20th. While this may preserve institutional memory, it does not override the principle of functional dismissal. Legislative proceedings—including impeachment—generally lapse upon adjournment sine die unless expressly revived in the succeeding Congress.

In United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that each legislative chamber is the sole judge of its proceedings. The Senate, therefore, cannot be compelled to revive Articles from a past Congress without first subjecting them to renewed scrutiny under its own rules and constitutional standards.

To insist otherwise is to reduce the Senate to a mere conduit of the House’s actions—an affront to the doctrine of inter-chamber respect and co-equality under a bicameral legislature.

---

Senator Lacson’s analogy between senator-judges and regular trial court judges may serve political rhetoric, but it misrepresents constitutional reality. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the House. It is a constitutional court of impeachment, endowed with the duty to protect due process, not subvert it.

To remand or dismiss Articles that are procedurally infirm is not to evade justice—it is to ensure that justice is done in accordance with the Constitution. Impeachment, as the ultimate tool for public accountability, must not be weaponized by shortcuts or partisan expediency. In this respect, the Senate is right to demand full compliance with constitutional standards before convening the court of last resort.

Justice is not served by rushing to trial on defective charges. It is preserved by fidelity to process.

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University. He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances.

Rev. Valera is also an ordained evangelical minister,  non-denominational.