Is the Senate Superior to the House in Impeachment? Not Quite. But It Can Remand Articles of Impeachment.

 By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The recent controversy over the Philippine Senate’s decision to remand the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte back to the House of Representatives has sparked sharp criticism and confusion. In particular, Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s claim that the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, is a “higher organ” than the House has raised constitutional questions about the balance of power.

Is the Senate superior to the House? Does the remand violate the principle of co-equality? And can the Senate even return Articles of Impeachment?

Let us unpack these issues with constitutional clarity.

Co-Equal, But With Distinct Constitutional Roles

The 1987 Philippine Constitution establishes a bicameral Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, with each chamber being co-equal under the law.

Under Article XI, Section 3, the House has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment and act as prosecutor. The Senate, by contrast, has the exclusive power to try and decide impeachment cases.

These roles are not hierarchical. They are distinct but co-equal. The House indicts, the Senate judges.

What Happens When the Senate Sits as an Impeachment Court?

When the Senate transforms itself into an Impeachment Court, it leaves its legislative function and assumes a quasi-judicial role. In this capacity, the Senate must ensure that the Articles of Impeachment are facially sufficient, procedurally sound, and respect the constitutional framework of due process.

This duty includes the discretion to remand Articles that are incomplete, defective, or procedurally infirm—not as a political maneuver, but as a constitutional guardrail. This procedural safeguard ensures that the trial does not proceed based on legally questionable foundations.

This is not an act of superiority. It is a function of the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to conduct a fair and legitimate trial.

Is the Senate a “Higher Organ”?

Senator Escudero’s controversial statement that the Senate, when convened as an Impeachment Court, is a “higher organ” than the House, should not be interpreted as a claim of institutional supremacy.

Instead, it is best understood in terms of finality of function. The Senate renders the final judgment in the impeachment process. This does not mean the Senate is superior—it simply has the last say after the House completes its exclusive role as prosecutor.

Thus, the term “higher” should be seen in the context of procedural hierarchy, not constitutional dominance.

The Power to Remand: A Matter of Due Process

The remand of Articles of Impeachment is not unprecedented in constitutional democracies. In the United States, which shares a similar impeachment structure, the Senate has historically refused to act on defective articles. For instance, in the Impeachment Trial of Secretary of War William Belknap (1876), the U.S. Senate debated whether to proceed with articles after Belknap’s resignation and took procedural steps before moving forward.

In the Philippines, the landmark case of Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (2003), affirmed that impeachment is a sui generis process—neither fully political nor fully judicial. This gives both the House and the Senate internal powers to ensure that the process adheres to constitutional norms.

A remand, therefore, is not a constitutional insult. It is a protective mechanism—a way for the Senate to assert its role as arbiter of due process without usurping the House’s power to impeach.

Final Word: No Supremacy, Only Separation

The Senate and the House are constitutional equals. But when impeachment proceedings begin, they each play very different roles. The Senate’s power to remand does not diminish the House’s authority—it merely affirms that due process and procedural sufficiency matter even in politically charged cases.

We must reject the idea that a co-equal chamber exercising its distinct constitutional function is somehow violating the balance of power. On the contrary, this division preserves it.

The people deserve accountability—but they also deserve that accountability to come through a process that is legal, just, and constitutional.#

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 an AB-Philosophy Major at the University  of Santo Tomas ( UST). He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances.