THE Senate, acting as an impeachment court, voted 18–5 on Tuesday evening to return the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives.
The decision rejects outright dismissal of the case, thereby keeping it technically active for possible future proceedings.
The motion was introduced by Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano as a compromise, aiming to uphold constitutional procedures without prematurely terminating the case. The resolution clearly stated that the return of the articles does not constitute a dismissal or final ruling.
“This will only cause a delay of around four days. It won’t hinder the process and may even help the 20th Congress,” Cayetano told reporters in an ambush interview. He explained that the move was intended to enable the next Congress to deliberate on the issue with greater legitimacy and clarity.
Opposing the motion were Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel III and Senators Risa Hontiveros, Nancy Binay, Grace Poe, and Sherwin Gatchalian.
Hontiveros issued a strong dissent, questioning the legal clarity and precision of the motion’s language.
“The wording introduces unnecessary ambiguity to an already politically sensitive proceeding,” she said. “There is no provision in the Constitution for a ‘remand’ or ‘return.’ Our obligation is clear: to try and decide the case.”
She added that if clarifications were needed, the Senate could have simply asked the House prosecution panel to submit a formal compliance, rather than returning the articles.
Case Remains Open
The Senate’s decision allows the House to refile, revise, or affirm its impeachment complaint in the next Congress. Cayetano noted that the Senate would request the House to certify whether the complaint violates the constitutional one-year bar on multiple impeachment attempts—an issue highlighted in Dela Rosa’s original motion to dismiss.
Cayetano acknowledged the divide within the Senate, explaining that while some favored dismissal, the return of the articles represented a balanced approach.
“Most of us didn’t want to dismiss the case outright but agreed that we need to examine the facts to determine whether there was indeed a constitutional violation,” he said. (PNA)
