Senate’s job is to try Duterte, not question constitutionality, says framer

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

MANILA, Philippines — The Senate has no business raising the question of “constitutionality” about the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, constitutional framer Christian Monsod said.

Monsod pointed out that a petition assailing Duterte’s impeachment has already been filed before the Supreme Court, which he said is the proper body to answer such constitutional questions.

The Senate should proceed then with the impeachment trial as mandated by the Constitution while waiting for the high court’s ruling, Monsod added.

"The Senate’s job, according to the Constitution, is to hold a trial… They must proceed with the trial,” Monsod said in a DZBB interview on Wednesday, June 11. “During the trial, I’m sure that the lawyers of the Vice President will raise certain points that they would like in order to verify or whatever it is. But it is not the Senate (that) should initiate the issue of constitutionality,” he said.

Senators' role during trial. Senators acting as judges can ask questions of the House prosecutors.

“They (the Senate) can ask all the questions they want on whether the Vice President committed any of these charges,” Monsod said.

On Tuesday, the senators took their oaths as senator-judges for the impeachment trial. However, they voted to send back the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives, asking it to certify that it did not violate the constitutional prohibition on initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a year.

This same issue was raised in the Supreme Court petition filed by Duterte and her supporters in February.

Continuity of proceedings 

One constitutional question raised by senators is whether the impeachment complaint can carry over from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress. Senators who voted to return the articles to the House said the next—or 20th—Congress "must communicate to the Senate that it is willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint.”

Monsod, however, argued that even if the trial reaches the 20th Congress, the Senate must still continue the proceedings as its constitutional duty.

“I think it’s already resolved, or it’s clear that the 20th Congress may continue with the trial. This is not legislation. This is the job or the power given to the Senate to conduct the trial,” he said.

“It’s a responsibility of the Senate. Whether it’s the 19th or, if hindi natapos sa 19th, then of the 20th Congress. That’s the Senate. That’s their job is to finish the trial,” he added.

Legal experts weighing in 

Far Eastern University Institute of Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria said the situation was comparable to cases remanded by the Supreme Court to lower courts but questioned how the Senate—a co-equal body to the House—could send the articles back.

“How could this be?” Sta. Maria asked in a Facebook post.

Former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay noted that returning the articles gives the House the option to reassess the complaints. If the House rejects the remand, he said, the Senate would have no choice but to proceed with the trial.

“The 18-5 vote of the Senate is also a potential signal to the House of the kind of political climate it faces if it decides to pursue the impeachment,” Hilbay said in a Facebook post.

He also said the House could effectively terminate the impeachment proceedings by withdrawing or “not returning” the Articles of Impeachment—a “functional dismissal” that would be hard to challenge before the Supreme Court.

“A refusal by the House to proceed will almost certainly be accepted as final and binding by the Senate,” he added.

RELATED: Sara Duterte asks Supreme Court to stop impeachment