Constitutional Crisis: PhilConsa Challenges Senate's Remand of Duterte Impeachment

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

"Public Office is a Public Trust" Under Siege as Legal Experts Cry Foul

The Philippines' oldest constitutional authority sounds alarm as Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial faces unprecedented procedural roadblocks

In a dramatic turn that has sent shockwaves through the Philippine political establishment, the country's most venerable constitutional watchdog has issued a scathing rebuke of the Senate's controversial decision to remand Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment case back to the House of Representatives.

The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa), led by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, released an urgent statement on June 11, 2025—just one day after the Senate voted 18-5 to return the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte to the House of Representatives—warning that the move "may constitute grave abuse of discretion and risks undermining the most fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy."

The Unprecedented Remand

Philippine senators set themselves as an impeachment court Tuesday for the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte over corruption and other criminal allegations, but voted to send the raft of complaints back to the lower House of Representatives due to legal questions. The decision came as a stunning surprise to legal observers who expected the trial to proceed after months of political buildup.

The Senate minority bloc argues that remanding the case to the House is tantamount to the dismissal of the impeachment case, setting up what promises to be a constitutional showdown with far-reaching implications for Philippine democracy.

PhilConsa's Constitutional Battle Cry

In their statement, PhilConsa—describing itself as "the oldest and most authoritative voice on constitutional law in the Republic"—raised four devastating constitutional concerns that strike at the heart of the impeachment process:

1. The Jurisdiction Question: Once Seized, Never Released

The organization's most damning charge centers on what they term "Grave Abuse of Discretion." PhilConsa argues that once the Senate receives the Articles of Impeachment, its jurisdiction as an Impeachment Court cannot simply be suspended or abandoned through procedural maneuvering.

"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," the statement declares, invoking Supreme Court precedent that "jurisdiction, once validly acquired, is not lost by subsequent happenings."

2. Constitutional Overreach: Invading the House's Sacred Ground

Perhaps even more explosive is PhilConsa's second concern about "Encroachment on the House's Exclusive Power." The organization suggests that by requiring the House to certify compliance with constitutional requirements, the Senate may be illegally intruding upon the House's constitutionally mandated "sole prerogative" over impeachment proceedings.

This represents a potential separation of powers crisis, with one chamber of Congress effectively telling the other how to conduct its exclusive constitutional duties.

3. Procedural Warfare: The Delay Tactic

PhilConsa's third charge—"Circumlocutory Delay"—cuts to the political heart of the matter. The organization argues that imposing novel requirements not found in the Constitution or Senate Rules constitutes nothing more than a sophisticated delaying tactic designed to "delay or defeat the trial."

This accusation transforms what the Senate majority has framed as procedural diligence into something far more sinister: a coordinated effort to undermine the impeachment process itself.

4. The Impartiality Crisis

Most troubling of all may be PhilConsa's final concern about "Due Process and Impartiality." The organization suggests that by raising possible defenses on behalf of Vice President Duterte, the Senate has compromised its role as an impartial impeachment court.

This strikes at the very foundation of impeachment as a judicial process, suggesting that the Senate has abandoned its role as neutral arbiter to become an advocate for the accused.

The Stakes: Democracy Itself

PhilConsa's language grows increasingly urgent as the statement progresses, warning that "at stake is not merely the fate of one official, but the integrity of the Constitution itself." The organization emphasizes that impeachment serves as "the people's mechanism to enforce Accountability of Public Officials" and "must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver."

The statement concludes with an almost Biblical proclamation: "The Filipino people are watching. The Constitution commands it."

Historical Precedent and Constitutional Authority

The weight of PhilConsa's criticism cannot be understated. The organization cites the Clinton impeachment trial before the U.S. Senate as precedent, noting that "our own impeachment process follows" this established model. The invocation of international precedent alongside Philippine jurisprudence suggests the global implications of what many are now calling a constitutional crisis.

Former Chief Justice Puno's signature on the statement adds gravitas to the criticism. As the former head of the Philippine Supreme Court, Puno's constitutional interpretations carry significant weight in legal circles.

The Political Firestorm

The remand decision has created a political firestorm that extends far beyond legal technicalities. Duterte has accused Marcos, his wife and Romualdez of corruption, weak leadership and attempting to muzzle her because of speculation she may seek the presidency in 2028. The impeachment proceedings were seen as a crucial test of Philippine democratic institutions.

Now, with the case in procedural limbo, questions arise about whether the political system can handle high-stakes constitutional conflicts without descending into crisis.

The Way Forward: Constitutional Crossroads

PhilConsa's call for the Senate to "uphold its constitutional duty and proceed with the impeachment trial in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law" represents more than legal advice—it's a clarion call for constitutional fidelity in an era of increasing political polarization.

The organization warns that "any act or device that circumvents this duty gravely imperils our democratic institutions," framing the current standoff as nothing less than a test of Philippine democracy itself.

As the statement concludes with the stark reminder that "circumlocutory compliance with the Constitution destroys the rule of law which is the bedrock of democracy," the Philippines finds itself at a constitutional crossroads with implications that will resonate far beyond the fate of any single official.

The question now is whether the Senate will heed PhilConsa's constitutional warning or continue down a procedural path that the country's most respected constitutional scholars warn could undermine the very foundations of Philippine democracy.

The eyes of the nation—and the Constitution—are indeed watching.

About "WazzupPilipinas.com"

WazzupPilipinas.com is the fastest growing and most awarded blog and social media community that has transcended beyond online media. It has successfully collaborated with all forms of media namely print, radio and television making it the most diverse multimedia organization. The numerous collaborations with hundreds of brands and organizations as online media partner and brand ambassador makes WazzupPilipinas.com a truly successful advocate of everything about the Philippines, and even more since its support extends further to even international organizations including startups and SMEs that have made our country their second home.