Not a Rubber Stamp: Why the Senate Has Constitutional Authority to Return Defective Articles of Impeachment to the House
By: Atty. Arnedo S. Valera
When the Senate recently returned the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President to the House of Representatives, critics quickly charged that such action was unconstitutional—claiming that only the impeached official could question the validity of impeachment and that the Senate had no business intervening in the House's “exclusive power to initiate.” But such claims ignore the clear structure and spirit of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, comparative constitutional law, and the proper role of the Senate as both a constitutional court and co-equal legislative body.
This article sets forth the constitutional and jurisprudential basis why the Senate’s return or remand of defective Articles of Impeachment is both proper and necessary.
I. The Senate’s Role Is Not Mechanical: It Must First Ascertain Jurisdiction
Under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the House of Representatives holds the exclusive power to initiate impeachment, while the Senate has the exclusive power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. The Constitution presumes that each chamber performs its respective role according to law, form, and substance.
To argue that the Senate must proceed with trial upon mere transmittal—regardless of the Articles’ procedural or constitutional defects—is to reduce the Senate to a receiving clerk. It nullifies its quasi-judicial function and undermines its solemn duty to uphold constitutional order.
In the landmark U.S. case Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that impeachment is committed to the "sole" authority of Congress, particularly the Senate in the trial phase. This exclusivity implies that the Senate has the duty to judge for itself whether the constitutional requirements for jurisdiction—including a valid initiation by the House—have been met.
II. Co-Equal Power Means Shared Responsibility—Not Absolute Immunity
To suggest that the House cannot be questioned by the Senate is to dismantle the constitutional principle of checks and balances. While the House initiates, the Senate must be satisfied that such initiation is valid. The House is not a superior body, nor is the Senate a subservient one. They are co-equal chambers of Congress.
The Philippine Supreme Court has echoed this in Angara v. Electoral Commission (G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936), affirming that all branches and instrumentalities of government must operate within their constitutionally defined spheres—and subject to inter-branch accountability when one oversteps. The House cannot use “exclusive power” as a shield to transmit defective or politically motivated Articles of Impeachment without judicial or constitutional scrutiny.
III. Certification Alone Does Not Cure Constitutional Defects
The certification by the Secretary General of the House that Articles are “in order” does not immunize them from challenge. This is especially true if:
The complaint is not properly verified;
The one-third signature requirement is procedurally or fraudulently obtained;
The charges are not in accord with the grounds for impeachment enumerated in Article XI, Section 2.
In People v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 115439-41, July 16, 1997), the Supreme Court emphasized that due process and procedural integrity are foundational to all quasi-judicial proceedings. Impeachment—though political—is no exception.
IV. The Senate Has the Duty to Protect the Impeachment Process from Abuse
The impeachment process was never intended to be a political tool weaponized against adversaries. It was intended as a constitutional safety valve to remove unfit public officials. That is why the power to try was entrusted to the Senate as a deliberative, trial-based body, not the House.
If the Senate receives Articles of Impeachment that are facially defective or of doubtful legitimacy, it has the constitutional obligation to halt and, if necessary, return the Articles to preserve the integrity of the process.
This finds strong analog in Senate Impeachment Trial of Judge Alcee Hastings (1989) and Judge G. Thomas Porteous (2010) in the United States, where the U.S. Senate either dismissed or demanded clarifications in the transmittal of Articles where due process concerns or procedural defects were raised.
V. Only the Senate Can Protect Itself from Institutional Abuse
It is also erroneous to argue that only the impeached official may challenge the validity of the impeachment. The Senate is not just the passive venue for the trial—it is the constitutional tribunal. Like any court, it must first determine if it has jurisdiction, and if the Articles were properly filed and transmitted.
As stated in In re Impeachment of Justices Velasco and De Castro (G.R. No. 235658, 2018), the Supreme Court acknowledged the autonomy of both houses of Congress to ensure internal compliance with constitutional requirements. This includes the Senate’s right to refuse jurisdiction over defective filings.
VI. Conclusion: The Senate Acted Rightly and Constitutionally
Returning the Articles of Impeachment is not an act of arrogance or overreach. It is an act of constitutional fidelity. The Senate cannot—and must not—entertain Articles of Impeachment that violate due process, ignore form and substance requirements, or are tainted with political motives.
In impeachment, the ends do not justify the means. The process must preserve both constitutional order and the rule of law. By demanding compliance with due process and the procedural requirements of the Constitution, the Senate has not subverted impeachment—it has protected its legitimacy.
Let us not sacrifice the Constitution in the name of political expediency. Both houses of Congress must rise to the occasion, as co-equal partners in the democratic order.
CITED AUTHORITIES:
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081 (1936)
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41 (1997)
In re Impeachment of Velasco and De Castro, G.R. No. 235658 (2018)
Senate Impeachment Rules (U.S.)
Senate Impeachment Trials: Judge Alcee Hastings (1989), Judge G.T. Porteous (2010)
About the Author:
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.
Comments
Post a Comment