The Senate impeachment court’s requirement for the House of Representatives to attest that it still intends to pursue Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial — even as it transitions into a new Congress — lacks constitutional basis and is unnecessary, a House prosecutor said Sunday.

Bukidnon Rep. Keith Flores argued that the Senate impeachment court has no authority to second-guess the House’s constitutional power to initiate an impeachment, much less if the intent was already made clear with the transmittal of the articles of impeachment on 5 February.

In the unlikely event of withdrawal, he asserted that the House can act independently without any marching orders from the Senate, criticizing the directive as uncalled for and redundant.

“That compliance seems superfluous. The House had already filed it. So, it should also be the House to determine whether to proceed or not because that’s the prerogative of the House,” Flores said partly in Filipino in an interview.

“My point is, the Senate was wrong to order the House… It’s not necessary to ask it,” he continued. “It has no grounds in the Constitution; no basis indeed.”

The Senate took more than four months from receiving the verified impeachment complaint from the House on 5 February before constituting itself as a court, only to remand the articles to the House on 10 June, barely a day before the 19th Congress adjourned sine die.

In remanding the articles of impeachment, the Senate impeachment court ordered the House to certify that it did not violate Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5, which prohibits the filing of more than one impeachment case against the same official within a one-year period.

The House was likewise directed to attest if it is still willing to pursue the trial even if it crosses over into the present 20th Congress.

Duterte was impeached by the House in early February — four months before the sine die adjournment — on grounds of graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other high crimes.

Perceived pro-Duterte senator-judges Christopher Bong Go, Ronald dela Rosa, Robin Padilla and Imee Marcos had called into question the legality of the impeachment stretching into the 20th Congress.

It mirrors the same argument raised by the VP’s lawyers, calling the impeachment void ab initio (from the beginning) and accusing the House of violating the one-year bar rule.

The House prosecution panel has maintained that the one-year prohibition was “never circumvented” because the initiation was only triggered when the fourth impeachment complaint was verified and signed by at least 215 members of the entire House.

The impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate was the fourth petition lodged against her in a span of two months.

It mustered signatures of more than double the required one-third votes (102), allowing it to bypass committee hearings and be transmitted directly to the Senate for trial.

According to Flores, the apparent ultimatum will not be complied with until the 20th Congress officially convenes on 28 July.

But despite their dissent, Flores said the prosecution is duty-bound to abide by the directives of the impeachment court.

“There’s a high probability that we will comply. [But] for me, it’s really unnecessary; it’s unconstitutional. There’s nowhere in the Constitution that says that once an impeachment complaint is filed, you still need to ask whether they’re willing to proceed. That’s the whole point of filing it in the first place,” he narrated.

Earlier, Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno, who is set to join the prosecution team, warned that the second requirement by the Senate may be a “trap” that anti-impeachment senator-judges and even the defense could invoke to dismiss the proceedings.