{"id":11573,"date":"2025-06-20T00:55:04","date_gmt":"2025-06-19T23:55:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/?p=11573"},"modified":"2025-06-18T15:44:51","modified_gmt":"2025-06-18T14:44:51","slug":"functional-dismissal-senate-action-sparks-dispute-over-sara-duterte-impeachment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/functional-dismissal-senate-action-sparks-dispute-over-sara-duterte-impeachment\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Functional Dismissal?\u2019: Senate action sparks dispute over Sara Duterte impeachment"},"content":{"rendered":"

After being sworn in as judges for the impeachment trial<\/a> against Vice President Sara Duterte on June 10, 2025, the Philippine Senate voted<\/a> to return the impeachment complaint to the House of Representatives.<\/p>\n

Senator Ronald \u201cBato\u201d dela Rosa initially sought<\/a> to dismiss the impeachment case, citing \u201cconstitutional infirmities\u201d and questions on the jurisdiction of the 20th Congress, but his motion did not gain support from his fellow senators. They argued<\/a> that it would be premature for the Senate to make a decision on dismissing the case without first hearing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense.<\/p>\n

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano moved<\/a> to amend the motion of dela Rosa. The articles of impeachment are<\/a> now to be returned to the House of Representatives \u201cwithout dismissing nor terminating the case.” This would apply<\/a> until the House of Representatives confirms that the Constitution has not been violated and informs the Senate to continue the impeachment proceedings against Duterte in the 20th Congress. The Constitution also states<\/a> that impeachment proceedings against a public official may not be initiated more than once within a year.<\/p>\n

The five Senators Aquilino Pimentel III, Risa Hontiveros, Nancy Binay, Grace Poe, and Sherwin Gatchalian rejected<\/a> the decision.<\/p>\n

Although Senate President and presiding officer Chiz Escudero insisted<\/a> that the remand is not tantamount to dismissal of the case, the move to return the impeachment complaint to the House of Representatives has raised uncertainty about the trial\u2019s future.<\/p>\n

Senator Risa Hontiveros from the two-member minority bloc believes<\/a> that the move was an effective termination of the impeachment case. \u201cRemand is functional dismissal,\u201d she said. Escudero\u2019s remark that the 19th Congress cannot bind the 20th Congress in matters of impeachment has also fueled<\/a> debate over whether the impeachment case can be carried over to the 20th Congress.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, House prosecutors say<\/a> that the trial will proceed, pointing out that the Senate had already accepted jurisdiction when it issued the summons to the Vice President. “No one can stop this anymore,” said<\/a> Rep. Gerville Luistro, one of the House prosecutors.” Jurisdiction has already been acquired by the impeachment court,\u201d she said<\/a>.<\/p>\n

On June 11, 2025, the Office of the Vice President confirmed<\/a> that it had received the summons from the Senate impeachment court. Signed by Senate President Francis Escudero, the summons asked<\/a> Sara Duterte to file her answer to the accusations indicated in the Articles of Impeachment<\/a> within a non-extendible period of 10 days.<\/p>\n

Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said<\/a> in a radio interview that only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine constitutional issues surrounding impeachment. \u201cThe Senate\u2019s job is to try the case, not to supervise the House,\u201d he said<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Photo \u00a9 Senate of the Philippines<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After being sworn in as judges for the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte on June 10, 2025, the Philippine Senate voted to return the impeachment complaint to the House of Representatives. Senator Ronald \u201cBato\u201d dela Rosa initially sought to dismiss the impeachment case, citing \u201cconstitutional infirmities\u201d and questions on the jurisdiction of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":11624,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[73,58,59,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-aktuelles-en","category-human-rights-news","category-internal-affairs","category-news-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11573"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11573\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11599,"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11573\/revisions\/11599"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amp.ngo\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}