Philconsa raises constitutional concerns over Senate impeachment move

By Benjamin Pulta, Philippine News Agency

Senators take their oath as judges in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday (June 10, 2025). Senate President Francis Escudero, serving as presiding officer, led the oath-taking ceremony, marking the chamber’s assumption of its constitutional mandate to try the impeachment complaint transmitted by the House of Representatives. (PNA photo by Avito Dalan)

MANILA – The Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) on Thursday said the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, raised constitutional concerns when it returned the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives.

In a statement, Philconsa, through its chairperson former chief justice Reynato Puno, said the Senate’s action “raises grave constitutional questions and challenges the integrity of the impeachment process.”

“Philconsa warns that it may constitute grave abuse of discretion and risks undermining the most fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy: that Public Office is a Public Trust,” Puno said.

“The Accountability of Public Officials cannot be overstressed — and must never be evaded through procedural artifice,” he added.

The Philconsa said among the constitutional concerns raised are grave abuse of discretion — whether the Senate unlawfully suspended its jurisdiction already validly acquired as an Impeachment Court.

Another is encroachment on the House’s exclusive power — whether requiring the House to certify compliance with the one-year ban infringes upon the House’s sole prerogative under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Whether imposing novel requirements not found in the Constitution or Senate Rules constitutes a circumlocutory device designed to delay or defeat the trial is also a question, it said.

Another issue is whether raising possible defenses on behalf of the respondent compromises the impartiality of the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

Lastly, Philconsa said there is the fundamental question of law.

“Is the mere lack of certification from the House of Representatives sufficient to justify remand of the case and suspension of trial? PhilConsa submits that no such requirement exists under the Constitution or established impeachment practice. To create such a requirement ex post facto undermines both the separation of powers and the rule of law,” Puno said.

Citing legal precedents, Philconsa said that once the impeachment court validly acquired jurisdiction, it is not lost by subsequent happenings.

“Once the Senate is clothed with jurisdiction as an impeachment court upon receipt of the articles of impeachment, that jurisdiction cannot be lost or suspended by mere procedural acts. It remains until final resolution or dismissal by the Court itself,” Puno said.

“PhilConsa calls upon the Senate to uphold its constitutional duty and proceed with the impeachment trial in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law. Any act or device that circumvents this duty gravely imperils our democratic institutions.”

The group pointed out that at stake is not merely the fate of one official, but the integrity of the Constitution itself.

“Impeachment is the people’s mechanism, to enforce accountability of public officials. It must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver.

“