The interparliamentary fireworks have begun before the Senate court has constituted itself to try Vice President Sara Duterte, a process that remains uncertain at the moment.

A heated argument has erupted on the streets and social media over the impeachment tribunal’s order to remand the impeachment complaints to the House of Representatives.

Legal experts, including former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, indicated that the move was necessary to bridge the gap between the 19th and 20th Congresses, but the rabid cynics and anti-Duterte forces were all over town, demonizing it as an act to kill the impeachment case.

Topnotch lawyer and DAILY TRIBUNE columnist Ferdinand Topacio added that the certification sought from the House of Representatives, stating that the impeachment complaint does not violate the one-year ban on filing more than one case to remove an elected official, serves as a safeguard. This would make the persons who signed liable in case of a breach of the Charter.

Instead of complying with the Senate court’s ruling to amend or withdraw the impeachment articles, the House of Representatives was defiant.

It adopted House Resolution 2346, certifying that the impeachment case had complied with all constitutional requirements.

It did not accept the remand and asked the Senate to clarify the questions raised by House prosecutors, resulting in an impasse.

The deadlock had both chambers claiming they acted appropriately, but neither was willing to proceed.

Neither side has formally moved to dismiss the complaint, nor has either shown urgency in resolving the jurisdictional standoff that would result in the impeachment case expiring.

The stalemate could be deliberate, as it provides both chambers with an honorable exit rather than an outright dismissal of the impeachment case.

The failure to act now forecloses the possibility of acting later. It is a time-barred silence.

Lawyer Anthony Vista said that only political pressure can compel the Senate to proceed with impeachment proceedings, as neither the Supreme Court nor the House can force such action.

The Constitution may impose the duty, but it does not provide a means to enforce it.

“Political pressure, at this moment, is weak,” he said.

“Constitutional commands, no matter how strongly worded, cannot function without institutional will and public consensus. And in the absence of both, impeachment becomes a theoretical possibility but a political impossibility,” he explained.

The general mood does not currently support a divisive process. The calls from law schools, religious institutions, and some civil society groups “may reflect a principled reading of the Constitution — but they are not matched by public urgency,” according to Vista.

“Most Filipinos, as current surveys and sentiment suggest, are not pushing for an impeachment trial. The Senate, as a political body, is sensitive to this,” he added.

The impeachment lapsing with the end of the 19th Congress will have no legal consequence, but rather a result in the court of public opinion.

The pressure to act comes from the people: through media, civil society, academic voices, and ultimately through the ballot, according to the lawyer.The tossing of the case from one chamber to another merely proved the rushed articles of impeachment and the reluctance of both legislative bodies to assume responsibility for it.

What both chambers also wanted to prevent was the process being exploited by anarchist and destabilizer groups to sow mayhem.