Remanding Impeachment Articles 'unique but allowable'- constitution framer

Metro Manila, Philippines - Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and principal author of the charter’s impeachment provisions, described the Senate decision to remand the Impeachment Articles against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives as “unique but allowable.”

In an interview with ‘The Newsmaker’ on Newswatch Plus, Azcuna said that while the Constitution mandates the Senate to “try and decide” all impeachment cases once the articles are transmitted, it does not explicitly prohibit procedural actions that facilitate continuity across Congress transitions.

“It’s something that has never happened before. But that’s because we’ve never had an impeachment caught between two Congresses. The remand is a procedural innovation, not a dismissal, to ensure a smooth crossover from the 19th to the 20th Congress,” said Azcuna.

The Senate, sitting as Impeachment Court, voted 18-5 to return the Articles of Impeachment to the House on Tuesday, June 10. The motion of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano sought a certification from the House that: only one impeachment complaint was filed this year against the vice president, in accordance with the one-year bar rule; and the House remains willing to prosecute the case in the new Congress.

Critics said the move delayed justice and undermined the Senate duty to act. However, Azcuna said the court has already acquired jurisdiction, and that the remand simply ensures legal and procedural consistency across legislative terms.

“Jurisdiction has already been attached. The case is not dismissed. It’s still alive. The referral is to ensure that the same complaint continues. It is a procedural bridge not a constitutional breach,” said Azcuna.

He also clarified that remanding the Articles was not a decision under the Constitution’s “try and decide” clause, and therefore not equivalent to dismissing the case. He also rejected claims that the Senate overstepped its authority by asking the House to re-attest its willingness to prosecute. Rather, he said, the move was “a formality” to prevent legal ambiguity.

“This is not the Senate policing the House. It’s a safeguard to ensure we’re all on the same page,” he said

Asked what happens if the House declined to return the Articles, Azcuna said it would raise serious constitutional concerns.

“They have already adopted the articles. Their role now is to prosecute. Failing to do so may be seen as abandoning their duty under the accountability mechanisms of the Constitution,” he said.

Azcuna also pointed to a key provision he himself added to the 1987 Constitution: Article XI, Section 3(10), which grants Congress the power to adopt its rules for implementing impeachment procedures.

“That section empowers the Senate to create mechanisms, even novel ones like this, to ensure the process works,” he said

Azcuna added that the 19th Congress had substantially fulfilled its duty by constituting the impeachment court and paving the way for the 20th Congress to take over.

“The court was convened, jurisdiction was acquired, and the stage is set for continuation. The process has not been derailed, only paused for transition,” he said.