‘Not judges, but defenders’: Lawyers hit Senate’s return of Sara Duterte impeachment case

VP Sara Duterte impeachment composite image from Inquirer files

MANILA, Philippines—When the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, voted 18-5 to remand the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte back to the House of Representatives, many in the legal community sounded the alarm.

Atty. Howard Calleja, a constitutional law expert and a noted professor of law, criticized the move as a breach of constitutional duty.

“Ang nakakatawa dito, sabi nga ng marami, senator judges sila [pero naging lawyer sila ni] Sara, silang 18,” said Calleja.

(What’s funny here, as many have said, is that they’re supposed to be senator-judges, but they became Sara’s lawyers, all 18 of them.)

“Hindi pala sila senator judges, naging abogado. Gusto pala nila maging abogado, bakit sila nag senador?” he added.

(They’re not senator-judges—they became lawyers. If they really wanted to be lawyers, then why did they become senators?)

The Senate’s resolution—framed as a procedural compromise—sought clarification from the House on whether the complaint violated the one-year bar rule and whether the incoming 20th Congress still intended to pursue it.

But for Calleja, this “return to sender” motion was neither procedural nor harmless.

READ: LIVE UPDATES: Senate sends back impeachment articles to House for review

“The 1987 Constitution does not grant the Senate, sitting as an impeachment tribunal, the authority to review Articles of Impeachment… A ‘remand’ to the House constitutes a review, which is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the tribunal’s powers. It is not a complex legal matter—it is illegal,” he explained.

He called the maneuver a “deliberate delaying tactic” dressed up as a compromise, one that ultimately “delayed, diluted, and disrespected” the impeachment process.

‘They forgot who they are’

Calleja wasn’t alone. Constitutional framer Atty. Christian Monsod also denounced the Senate’s actions as legally indefensible.

In an interview with INQUIRER.net’s INQToday, he questioned what authority the senators had to halt proceedings when no injunction had been issued by the Supreme Court.

“They’re fooling themselves, and they’re doing this for what reason? They’re acting like they are the lawyers for the vice president, right? Maybe they’re thinking of their future,” Monsod said.

“They can’t get away with this,” he warned. “They can’t just derail or stop this.”

READ: Christian Monsod: Senate decision to remand ‘railroading a wrong power’

He also took issue with Senate President Chiz Escudero’s claim that the Senate, acting as a court, held more authority than the House.

“So what’s his point? I don’t get his point?” he said. “Sabihin niyo hindi equal kasi sila ang judge at ang House ang prosecutor lang?”

(You’re saying it’s not equal because they’re the judges and the House is just the prosecutor?)

Monsod was also blunt in his assessment:

“Alam niyo, in street language, siga-siga sila. Akala nila nasa kanila ang kapangyarihan. Wala sa kanila ang kapangyarihan. Ang kapangyarihan nila is provided in the Constitution… It doesn’t mean that just because they are so-called senators that they have a lot of powers beyond that.”

(You know, in street language, they’re acting like bullies. They think the power lies with them. But it doesn’t. Their power is defined by the Constitution.)

For him, the Constitution is clear: once the articles of impeachment are transmitted, the Senate must proceed.

“It’s a very grave abuse of discretion… They cannot use [the Constitution] as an excuse. That’s not for them to determine.”

The legal consequences of delay

Atty. Lorna Kapunan, speaking in an episode of Facts First, echoed the concern that the Senate’s action was legally and ethically flawed.

“It is an unconstitutional solution and an error, error of judgment,” she said. “It is whimsical, it is despotic, it is arbitrary, and it is not supported by any constitutional provision nor by their own Senate rules.”

She pointed out that the articles had already been certified by more than two-thirds of the House—215 lawmakers, plus 20 additional signatories. “Why is there still a need to remand?”

READ: ‘Whimsical, despotic, arbitrary’: Prominent lawyer slams Senate return of case vs Sara Duterte

The issue, she added, was not just about due process for the accused.

“The Senate is very concerned about due process of the accused,” she said. “But there is also due process of the prosecution. The prosecution was not given any chance to speak on the issue.”

Kapunan explained that once the impeachment court is convened, the process must move forward. “There is no such term as a crossover to the 20th Congress,” she said. “Once you start a trial, it continues until the completion of the evidence.”

More voices raise concern

Atty. Romulo Macalintal, a known election lawyer, said the senators who supported the remand “took the cudgels for Duterte—filing a motion she alone should have filed as part of her formal defenses.”

In doing so, he added, “they abandoned their constitutional duty to serve as impartial judges and, more importantly, failed the Filipino people who have long awaited resolution of this case.”

READ: Senators ditched duty as impartial impeachment trial judges – lawyer

Human rights lawyer Atty. Chel Diokno also noted a serious departure from procedure. “The Senate is no longer sitting as a lawmaking body; they are sitting as senator-judges,” he said.

“The one that should file motions is the parties, but the parties have not been summoned yet as of now,” he continued.

READ: Diokno tells Senate: Judges not allowed to make motions

From Mindanao, a coalition of regional lawyers warned that the Senate’s move had broader implications:

“By refusing to proceed with the trial, the Senate is not only obstructing justice but also sending a dangerous message that powerful individuals can evade the constitutional mechanisms put in place to ensure their fidelity to the people.”

The group called it a “perilous precedent,” one that risks “further weakening our institutions and eroding public trust in the rule of law.”

READ: Mindanao lawyers’ group: Senate’s move ‘sets dangerous precedent’

Even the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), led by retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, issued a rare public statement urging the Senate to proceed with the trial.

“At stake is not merely the fate of one official, but the integrity of the Constitution itself,” the statement read. “Impeachment is the people’s mechanism to enforce accountability of public officials. It must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver.”

READ: Charter experts urge Senate to proceed with Duterte impeachment trial

Escudero, Tongol defend Senate’s stance

Senate President Chiz Escudero maintained that the Senate acted within its powers and that any question of constitutionality must be resolved by the courts.

“The only one who can say whether something done by any agency is constitutional or not is the Supreme Court. Not them and not us,” he said.

He described the impeachment court as sui generis—a class of its own—empowered to decide how it operates.

“The impeachment court can do whatever it wants to do as long as it gets voted upon,” he explained. “And if anyone disagrees, they are free to take it to the Supreme Court.”

Atty. Reginald Tongol, spokesperson for the impeachment court, said the Senate opted for what he called “an action of liberality.”

“The court voted, they said, ah, that’s not enough to dismiss,” Tongol said in Filipino. “Let’s just refer it back to the litigant to comply with what we’re saying is lacking… Instead of using the power to have it dismissed, that’s not what happened.”

He added that the senator-judges agreed to amend the motion and simply remand it—nothing more, nothing less.

‘Impeachment won’t feed people?’ Lawyers push back

The Senate’s move to remand the impeachment complaint was defended by some Duterte-allied senators as a practical decision. Senator Bong Go, one of Vice President Duterte’s staunchest allies, argued:

“Hindi naman nakakain itong impeachment.”

(This impeachment won’t put food on the table.)

But for legal experts like Kapunan, that line of reasoning misses the entire point.

“Precisely, that is what the impeachment is all about. Why are the people hungry? Why do people lack good education? Because of the accountability issue,” Kapunan said.

Kapunan explained that the complaint centers on alleged misuse of public funds—an issue directly tied to the public’s quality of life.

“These are all issues of corruption and misappropriation of public funds used for private interests,” she said. “That precisely is the heart of this impeachment issue.”

For her, impeachment is not a distraction from people’s needs—it is a mechanism to address why those needs remain unmet.

READ: Justice delayed is justice denied

Monsod echoed this view. Responding to Go’s statement, he emphasized that public trust and accountability are fundamental problems in the country.

“Isn’t it that people who are violating or betraying the public trust are a priority issue in our country?” he said. “One problem in our country is that there are people who think they’re untouchable.”

He urged Filipinos to reflect not only on the legal process, but on the people behind it.

READ: Strong, credible voices reverberate vs ‘delay’ in Sara Duterte trial

“Let them think about it, these are the people you voted for,” Monsod said.

“That’s how it is when it gets to their heads and think they can do as they please. No. That’s not right. They are public servants. They’re not public kings,” he added.

What now?

With Congress set to reconvene in late July, the Senate’s decision effectively places the impeachment proceedings in limbo. Whether the House complies or contests the Senate’s action remains to be seen.

But for many constitutionalists and legal practitioners, the concern goes beyond technicalities. It cuts to the very function of impeachment, as a tool of accountability and a test of institutional integrity.

Calleja summed it up starkly:

“This impeachment trial is not merely a question of one person’s guilt or innocence—it is a measure of the Senate’s moral capacity to rise above faction and protect the nation’s faith in its institutions.”

“The Senate now stands at a crossroads. It can reclaim its identity as a bulwark of democracy—or continue its descent into irrelevance as a rubber stamp for power. The choice is urgent. The nation is watching. And history will remember.”

Follow how this historic trial unfolds: get the latest updates on INQUIRER.net’s special coverage: LIVE UPDATES: Senate sends back impeachment articles to House for review