Remand as Constitutional Guardrail: The Senate’s Duty to Uphold Due Process in Impeachment

 By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

Introduction:

The Senate of the Philippines recently voted to remand the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte back to the House of Representatives. Critics, including former Senator Panfilo Lacson, argue that this move is akin to prejudging the case and violates the doctrine of checks and balances. However, such criticism fails to appreciate the sui generis nature of impeachment and the Senate’s constitutional authority to ensure that impeachment referrals are valid and procedurally sound.

This article defends the Senate's decision to remand, drawing from both Philippine constitutional law and U.S. precedents, affirming that such a procedural check is not only legally proper but democratically necessary.

I. The Sui Generis Nature of Impeachment and Senate Discretion

Impeachment is not an ordinary judicial proceeding; it is a political process with quasi-judicial features. In Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (Nov. 10, 2003), the Philippine Supreme Court held that impeachment is a sui generis mechanism grounded in constitutional accountability. The Senate, when acting as an impeachment court, retains broad discretion to adopt its own rules under Article XI, Section 3(8) of the 1987 Constitution.

The Senate is not required to automatically proceed to trial upon mere transmission of Articles from the House. It has the duty to examine procedural and substantive sufficiency before commencing proceedings. Otherwise, it would reduce itself to a mere rubber stamp of the House, contrary to the constitutional design of bicameral review and separation of powers.

II. Precedents from the United States: Senate as Gatekeeper

U.S. law reinforces this principle. While no U.S. Senate has “remanded” articles of impeachment formally, it has refused to proceed with impeachment trials due to jurisdictional or procedural defects. Notably:

1. William Blount's Impeachment (1797): The U.S. Senate dismissed the Articles of Impeachment against Senator Blount, not because of innocence, but because the Senate first determined that it lacked jurisdiction, reinforcing the principle that the Senate can conduct a preliminary inquiry into the validity and appropriateness of the impeachment process itself.

2. Belknap Impeachment (1876): In the case of Secretary of War William Belknap, the Senate first voted on whether it had jurisdiction even though Belknap had already resigned. Although it voted that it did, this shows that jurisdictional challenges—even before full trial—are within the Senate's authority to determine.

3. Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials (Rule XI, U.S. Senate): These rules explicitly allow the Senate to establish trial procedures, receive motions, and decide threshold legal questions prior to the start of the trial.

These U.S. examples confirm that the Senate’s impeachment function includes a gatekeeping role, ensuring the Articles meet constitutional standards before trial commences.

III. The Flawed Nature of the Articles and the Justification for Remand

The House of Representatives adopted a mere resolution certifying sufficiency of the impeachment complaint without clear records of deliberations, committee findings, or a vote on sufficiency in substance, which are required under House Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings, and as interpreted in Francisco v. House of Representatives.

Moreover, there are two grave constitutional defects that warrant remand:

1. Violation of the One-Year Bar Rule (Art. XI, Sec. 3[5], 1987 Constitution): The current impeachment complaint was filed within one year of a prior attempt involving substantially the same grounds—rendering the complaint constitutionally infirm.

2. Sessional Defect – Transition to 20th Congress: The impeachment complaint was initiated in the 19th Congress, but by June 30, a new Congress (20th) assumes office. As such, the Senate cannot validly try Articles not re-adopted or properly referred anew by the new House session. This aligns with U.S. practice where unfinished impeachment proceedings do not automatically carry over to the next Congress without reintroduction.

IV. Functional Dismissal: Upholding Democratic Accountability, Not Evading It

The Senate’s act of remanding the complaint functions as a “functional dismissal”—a procedural firewall against railroaded, weaponized impeachments. It is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather a safeguard ensuring that the Senate is not used to validate flawed or politically-motivated referrals.

As observed by Philippine Supreme Court in Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153 (Oct. 25, 2006), even the form and process of constitutional procedures matter deeply, and not just the substance. Democracy cannot be built on shortcuts.

V.  A Defense of Constitutional Order

The impeachment process is a sacred tool for accountability, not a partisan weapon for political elimination. The Senate, in remanding the defective Articles of Impeachment, has not evaded its duty—it has fulfilled its constitutional role as the final arbiter of due process, sufficiency, and legitimacy in impeachment.

The Filipino people deserve a clean, constitutional process, especially when the stakes involve a duly elected national official whose removal would not only affect her current office, but also her potential candidacy in 2028.

By remanding the Articles, the Senate preserved the rule of law—and more importantly, the people's sovereign right to choose their leaders in a free and fair election.

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.