As the Senate impeachment court awaits full compliance from the House of Representatives, lawmakers are raising red flags over a key requirement that could make or break the impending impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the House prosecution team, has publicly questioned the Senate’s second condition: a formal certification from members of the incoming 20th Congress affirming their intent to pursue the impeachment case. The certification is meant to demonstrate that the next legislature stands behind the proceedings, but Chua argues that the demand is legally baseless.
“In all honesty, we see this requirement as problematic,” Chua told reporters. “There’s no mention of such a certification in the 1987 Constitution. This isn’t how impeachment proceedings are supposed to work.”
Chua’s comments come amid increasing scrutiny over the Senate’s handling of the case. Critics claim the certification demand risks derailing the process before it even begins.
“We’re worried that complying might set a dangerous precedent—or worse, be used against us,” Chua warned. “We don’t want to fall into a trap. This isn’t a court of law; impeachment is a political process grounded in constitutional rules, not arbitrary ones.”
Legal gray area or political hurdle?
At the heart of the controversy is a concern raised by legal scholars, including Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno, who cautioned that the certification could inadvertently violate the one-year bar on initiating multiple impeachment complaints against the same official.
The 1987 Constitution, under Article XI, Section 3(5), explicitly states that no impeachment proceedings may be initiated against the same official more than once in a calendar year.
“If this certification is treated as a ‘new initiation,’ then we’re in dangerous waters,” Diokno warned. “This could open up a legal loophole that allows the impeachment to be thrown out entirely.”
But the Senate’s impeachment court maintains that the certifications are not traps, but rather safeguards. Court spokesperson Reginald Tongol emphasized that the intent is to ensure the legitimacy of the process.
“These are not procedural roadblocks,” Tongol stated. “They are designed to uphold constitutional standards and ensure that the process is airtight.”
The clock is ticking
Vice President Duterte’s impeachment was triggered on February 5, after 215 House members signed a complaint accusing her of misusing confidential funds, making threats against top officials, and committing other constitutional violations.
With well over the required one-third threshold, the House swiftly transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate. However, rather than proceed to trial, the Senate returned the articles, citing unresolved constitutional concerns—chief among them, whether the new Congress supports the case.
While the House has already met the first Senate condition—clarifying that the one-year rule has not been breached—it says it cannot fulfill the second until the 20th Congress officially convenes on July 28, mere hours before President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivers his next State of the Nation Address.
In the meantime, frustration is growing.
A trial in limbo
Prosecutors initially expected to read the charges before the Senate on June 2, when Congress resumed session. But that plan was scrapped and rescheduled to June 11—the last day of the 19th Congress—only to face further delays.
With each postponement, doubts continue to mount over whether the Senate is genuinely committed to pursuing the case or simply running out the clock.
“This back-and-forth is starting to erode public trust,” one House member commented on condition of anonymity. “The Constitution gives us the mandate to hold officials accountable. We hope the Senate remembers that.”
For now, all eyes are on July 28. Only then will it be clear whether the impeachment case will gain traction—or be quietly buried under technicalities and political theater.