Remand, Not Rubber Stamp: Why Senator Sotto’s Impeachment Commentary Misses the Constitutional Mark

 By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

When former Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto criticized the 19th Congress’ decision to remand the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte back to the House of Representatives, he implied that newer senators lacked historical understanding and constitutional grounding. He invoked lessons from the 11th Congress and the authority of the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago to assert that senator-judges are limited to asking questions and cannot move to remand or reject impeachment referrals.

But with due respect to Senator Sotto, this line of reasoning—while steeped in anecdotal recollection—misses both the constitutional character and the legal reality of the current impeachment landscape. This is not a case of rookies ignoring history; this is a case of a seasoned politician misreading the present.

Impeachment Is Not a Regular Trial

Under Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution, the Senate sits not as a regular court, but as a constitutional impeachment tribunal vested with the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. As clarified in Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (2003), impeachment is sui generis—a unique hybrid of legal and political processes. It is not bound by the strict procedural confines of judicial litigation, and certainly not by hearsay lessons from past chambers.

Therefore, to argue that a senator-judge may not move to remand procedurally or constitutionally defective Articles is to reduce the Senate to a mechanical receiving office—a dangerous distortion that violates the Senate’s duty to safeguard constitutional due process.

No One Is Above Procedural Scrutiny—Not Even the House

Senator Sotto fails to mention that the transmittal of Articles of Impeachment by the House must still meet constitutional prerequisites: sufficiency in form and substance, plenary deliberation, and observance of the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5). When these are absent—as they clearly were in the rushed case against VP Sara—the Senate is not only authorized but obligated to remand.

Impeachment cannot be a Trojan horse for political convenience. The decision to remand affirms the Senate’s commitment to constitutional integrity, not partisan manipulation.

This Impeachment Is Not Like the Past

Senator Sotto’s appeal to the impeachment of President Joseph Estrada and the 11th Congress ignores several contextual and legal differences:

1. The current impeachment attempt lacked proper plenary vote and deliberation in the House of Representatives.

2. It was transmitted on the eve of Congress’ transition, raising concerns of mootness and jurisdiction.

3. The basis for impeachment was arguably political retaliation, weaponizing the process to disqualify a likely presidential contender in 2028.

These are not trivial matters. They are constitutional red flags. To suggest that senators must remain passive until trial commencement is not only incorrect—it is constitutionally irresponsible.

Senator Sotto, With Respect: Aral Muna Tayong Lahat

It is ironic that Senator Sotto concluded with the advice, "Aral-aral muna bago pumutak." Indeed, we must all study—but we must also update our understanding, not freeze it in the amber of nostalgia.

Senator Sotto’s invocation of Senator Santiago, while emotionally potent, cannot override the collective constitutional responsibility of the Senate. Even Senator Santiago would have respected the duty of the Senate to avoid being a mere conduit for procedurally flawed impeachment.

The remand was not an act of evasion—it was an act of constitutional courage. In an age where democratic institutions are often co-opted by political expediency, the Senate majority chose to uphold due process over mob consensus.

The Senate Did Its Job. Let the House Do Theirs—Properly

The impeachment process is a sacred mechanism, not a political shortcut. The 19th Senate, by returning the Articles for proper completion, did not betray the Constitution—it fulfilled it.

Senator Sotto’s experience is acknowledged. But in this critical juncture of our democracy, experience must yield to constitutional discernment, not the other way around.

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 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