It is understandable that those who are itching to start the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte have their panties in a bunch over the remand by the Senate of the complaint to the House of Representatives.

They had thought all along that the bullying by their two most rabid pro-impeachment senators — Koko Pimentel and Risa Hontiveros — would fast-track the process. It did result in the convening of the Senate as an impeachment court two days in advance of the schedule. But then, without a word of warning, the Impeachment Court suddenly voted by a huge majority (18 aye, 5 nay) to remand the articles of impeachment to the House, citing serious questions as to its constitutionality.

The anti-Duterte crowd was unsurprisingly in an uproar over this turn of events. As admitted by Koko Pimentel himself, “nautakan siya” (they put one over him). Says a lot about his supposedly being a bar topnotcher. It’s good that he and Risa seemed to immensely relish wearing their purple robes; this may have been the first and last time for Koko.

Suddenly, a slew of self-labeled constitutional law “experts” — people who cover up their biases and lack of experience by writing books no one reads — materialized, saying that a remand was not in the Constitution. Being hacks, these people forget that in legal hermeneutics, a power that is given expressly contains implied powers necessary to carry out the explicit grant.

As the phrase “impeachment court” suggests, the Senate, when acting as such, is analogous to a regular court. True it is that a tribunal is more political than judicial (as we had witnessed in the cases of Estrada and Corona), but in the same manner as a regular court, the Senate starts the discharge of its function by determining jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is “the power to hear and decide a case.”

A complaint for impeachment, to be recognized by the impeachment court, must strictly adhere to the requirements of the Constitution for the Senate to recognize it. This is so because impeachment is not to be taken lightly. It is, after all, an attempt to unseat a high constitutional official, in this case a Vice President elected by some 32 million people.

There must thus be absolute certainty that the articles of impeachment that were transmitted to the Senate — which will set the ball rolling for the trial — stringently comply with the requisites of, among others, the one-year bar rule. This is because, once constituted as such, Senators-Judges take an oath, not only of impartiality but of strict adherence to the Constitution.

To state it simply, what good would a trial do if the articles are vitiated with fatal flaws to begin with? The impeachment court, having already been convened — thanks to the prodding of the pro-impeachment group, no less — was well within its rights to assure itself that the Constitution was adhered to, so as not to waste time and resources. And since it was their idea to rush the convening, the minority should not be heard to complain. Talk about a boomerang!

The House prosecution panel, composed of people who are hardly legal luminaries but are expecting to rely on their strong link to the powers-that-be, was caught flat-footed. Hilariously ironic because it happened after they received a benediction from some priest before the remand. They scrambled to say that they would not accept the remand pending a clarification from the Senate. Read: they don’t know what the hell to do; they’ve been shish kebab’ed!

As the Legislature nears its terminal recess for the 19th Congress, the impeachment trial appears to be in intensive care. With an anticipated constitutional challenge as to whether or not the complaint will survive the extinction of the 19th Congress, time will tell if the impeachment will survive, or will rest in peace.