By Atty. Howie Calleja
The 1987 Constitution does not grant the Senate, sitting as an impeachment tribunal, the authority to review Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House of Representatives.
It is not an appellate body and holds no supervisory power over the House.
The Senate’s only constitutional mandate is to try and decide the case—either to acquit or convict.
It has no role in assessing the sufficiency, completeness, or timing of the complaint once transmitted.
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.
This move is just another attempt to delay and derail the proceedings.
In Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution, the Senate’s sole duty is to ‘try and decide,’ not to judge the technical or procedural propriety of the impeachment complaint.
The power to initiate lies solely with the House under Section 3(1), reinforcing the clear division between the initiator and the adjudicator of impeachment cases.
Their failure to fulfill their clearly mandated duty to proceed and hear the case forthwith is both shameful and embarrassing.
It reflects not prudence but constitutional ignorance or outright political evasion.
The question now is this: as the debate continues to bend the rule of law and disregard the Constitution, will the people rise up and demand accountability?
While the resolution was framed as a procedural compromise to get the House to certify that the one-year bar was not violated, it is, in reality, a deliberate delaying tactic.
The Senate states that it is not dismissing the case and even directs that summons be served on Vice President Sara Duterte.
However, it also states that the next move will be determined by the 20th Congress, thereby admitting a crossover and creating further delay.
In effect, the resolution achieves nothing of legal value for VP Sara and only stokes public outrage as the people see through this hollow political gesture.
This is clearly a legal maneuver to return the case to the sender as if the House is at fault.
However, the real problem lies with the senators themselves—who have demonstrated not only political bias but also a profound disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Under the guise of avoiding dismissal, they have, in effect, delayed, diluted, and disrespected the impeachment process.
That is not compromise—it is capitulation.
Beyond legal ramifications, the political consequences mirror the public fallout from a mishandled delivery.
The decision has exacerbated existing political divisions, heightened social tensions, and eroded public trust in the Senate as an institution.
Like a package stubbornly sent to the wrong address, the return of the complaint creates ongoing disruption, confusion, and frustration.
In conclusion, the Senate’s “return to sender” resolution is not merely a procedural anomaly.
It is a constitutional violation with profound political and societal implications.
A thorough, public examination of the legal breaches, procedural irregularities, and political motivations is essential.
This episode will serve as a defining test of the strength and integrity of our democratic institutions.
What is required now is a transparent, impartial, and courageous effort to hold those in power accountable and restore public faith in the rule of law.
The analogy of a returned package highlights exactly what this is: an act of institutional inefficiency, evasion, and betrayal of purpose.
The people deserve better than excuses.
They deserve justice that is delivered, not deferred.
