Senators, do you know where you’re going to?

Voting 18-5, the Impeachment Court (IC), in an unusual and unprecedented action, remanded or returned to the House of Representatives (HOR) the Articles of Impeachment (AI) seeking the removal from office and the disqualification to hold public office in the future of the Vice President. At the same time, the IC issued a “Writ of Summons” directing the VP to file her answer within a non-extendible period of 10 days from her receipt of the summons, which had been promptly acknowledged by her office. Under the Senate Rules, the prosecutors may reply within a non-extendible period of five days from their receipt of the answer.

THE MAJORITY OF 18 EXPLAINED that the remand did not dismiss or terminate the case; it merely asked the HOR of the 20th Congress, repeat 20th Congress, (1) to issue a certification—allegedly akin to the sworn certificate of non-forum shopping required by the Rules of Court in civil cases—that it did not violate the constitutional provision banning the initiation of more than one impeachment complaint against the same official within one year; and (2) to communicate to the Senate that it is willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint against the VP.

With due respect to the majority, I believe the remand and the required certification do not have any constitutional, legal, or procedural anchors. There is no provision in the text of the Constitution granting the IC the power or authority to remand unilaterally or of its own volition. Neither can such power be inferred from any of its provisions.

Quite the contrary, the Constitution merely states: “In case the verified complaint … is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House (as had been done in this case), the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” Moreover, the Rules of the Senate do not grant such power or authority to the IC. In contrast, the Rules of Court textually require the non-forum shopping certificate from litigants in civil cases but not in criminal cases.

Assuming, arguendo, that the IC has such power arising from its nature as a sui generis quasi-judicial entity, still, it should not exercise such vague power unilaterally or by itself alone without giving notice and due process to the affected parties. It should have merely exercised its express power to “forthwith proceed” to trial by issuing the “Writ of Summons” to the VP (as it already did) to file her answer.

IN SHORT, THE SENATOR-JUDGES, in my humble opinion, should not lawyer for any party. They should maintain their credibility as independent and unbiased judges. They should just await the pleadings or actions by the parties and decide them under their “inherent” judicial power. In fact, the lawyers of the VP have announced publicly that, precisely, they were going to raise the constitutional infirmities allegedly committed by the HOR.

Ironically, by acting without any motion or request by the Vice President, the senator-judges could be accused of bias and asked by the prosecutors to inhibit or recuse.

At all events, by remanding the AI to the HOR of the 20th Congress, the IC necessarily recognized that its duty to try and decide the impeachment case is carried over to the 20th Congress. Its existence as an impeachment tribunal is not coterminous with the 19th Congress.

THIS TIME, I RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH THE IC; its existence is not affected by the change in its composition, in the same manner that the Supreme Court is not affected by changes in its membership due to the retirement, resignation, impeachment, or death of its justices. Even trial courts, manned by single judges, continue to function despite these same circumstances. Verily, newly appointed judges who did not participate in the trial could decide cases submitted for decision prior to their assumption of office. The office is different from the occupant thereof. The office continues despite changes in the occupant.

Consequently, I am impelled to ask, along the refrain of an old favorite song: Honorable senators, “Do you know where you’re going to? Do you like the things that life is showing you?” Indeed, do Your Honors know where the impeachment proceeding is going to?

See Also

‘Ang babae sa imburnal’

To the Supreme Court where the 20th Congress and the lawyers may delay and scuttle it till forgotten by our people?

To the waste basket, never mind the people’s cry for accountability (credible polls say that a vast majority—from 78 to 88 percent—of our people want accountability and transparency)?

To embarrass the VP who expressed a desire to clear her name via due process from her alleged maltreatment by the HOR?

To the battle in July 2025 for the election of the senate president of the 20th Congress who would thereafter preside over the reconvening of the IC?

To be fair, I did not identify the senator-judges alluded to though readers could name them based on what they saw and heard during the live coverage of the IC sessions, and on printed media reports. I leave it to their discretion as elected public officials to retain the public trust by answering the questions in the song popularized by the chanteuse Diana Ross.