This time, the self-righteous camp does not have a monopoly on viewpoints regarding the impeachment debate, as several groups with contrary views are emerging, particularly those supporting the remand of the impeachment complaint back to the House of Representatives.
The Senate, acting as an impeachment court, voted to remand or return the articles of impeachment to the House.
The primary reason for the return to sender is to allow the House to address supposed “constitutional infirmities” in the impeachment complaint, specifically concerns it may have violated the Constitution’s one-year bar on filing a new impeachment complaint against the same official.
Amid the barrage from the usual noisemakers — the elites and agitators — the voices of lesser known but otherwise reasonable people are being brought to the forefront.
The Senate motion, supported by 18 senators, is aimed at having the House certify that the impeachment process adhered to the constitutional requirements, such as proper procedures and compliance with the one-year rule.
Senators argued that this was a necessary procedural step to ensure that the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte were constitutionally sound.
Critics, including legal experts, however, called it unconstitutional, asserting that the Senate’s role is to try and decide the case, not to supervise the House.
In the rush to get rid of Duterte, three impeachment complaints were filed against her with the office of the House Secretary General by members of the House of Representatives on 2, 4 and 5 December 2024.
Under the impeachment rules of the House, the office of the Secretary General shall immediately refer the complaints to the Speaker.
The Speaker is required thereafter to include the articles in the order of business within 10 session days from receipt and refer them to the Committee on Justice within three session days.
The office of the Secretary General did not refer the three complaints to the Speaker, in violation of the rules.
A fourth impeachment complaint was filed on 5 February. Since the fourth impeachment complaint was supported by more than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives, seven articles of impeachment were filed in the Senate on the same day.
In the current debate, two contending views emerged.
The first is that under Section 3 (5), Article 11 of the Constitution, “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
In Francisco vs House of Representatives in November 2003, it was held that: “Initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice, or by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one-year period.”
Since the impeachment proceedings on 2, 4 and 5 December were not initiated, the fourth complaint could be filed without violating the one-year ban.
The opposite perspective is that under Article XI, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution, a verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member thereof, which shall be included in the order of business within 10 session days, and referred to the proper committee within three session days thereafter.
Since the Speaker failed to include the three impeachment complaints and refer them to the proper committee within three session days thereafter as required under the Constitution, the Speaker violated the provision on the one-year ban rule. Hence, the filing of the fourth complaint on 5 February 2025 indirectly violated the one-year ban rule.
A political commentator said if the move to remove VP Duterte were truly about the public interest, the House should have ensured that the complaint was airtight.
The 18-5 vote of the Senate court to remand the rushed articles was also revealing, as it showed the political leanings of the chamber’s members.
In reality, the whole process is political, and its outcome will be known by the tyranny of numbers.