Senator-elect Vicente “Tito” Sotto III questioned the Senate’s decision to take up the motion to dismiss the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte without the proper presentation of the Articles of Impeachment by the House prosecution panel.

Sotto pointed this out following the Senate’s decision to remand the Articles of Impeachment back to the House of Representatives.

The 18 senators, or senator-judges, who voted in favor of remanding the Articles of Impeachment were Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, Senators Alan Peter Cayetano, his sister Pia Cayetano, Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, Christopher “Bong” Go, Loren Legarda, Raffy Tulfo, Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. Robin Padilla, Imee Marcos, Cynthia Villar, Mark Villar, Joel Villanueva, Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Francis Tolentino, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, and Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri.

Those who voted in the negative were Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, Senators Risa Hontiveros, Grace Poe, Nancy Binay and Sherwin Gatchalian.

In the first place, remanding the Articles of Impeachment back to the 19th Congress is unnecessary, the former Senate president said.

“Remanding the case to the 19th Congress is unnecessary because they were the ones who filed the impeachment,” Sotto said. 

 Moreover, he said there is always a presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. 

That is why the impeachment proceedings during then former president Joseph Estrada and former chief justice Renato Corona’s impeachment trial proceeded without a hitch.

“We have a presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. The senators (senator-judges) may have forgotten this principle with respect to the acts of the HOR,” Sotto said. 

Moreover, he said the declaration of unconstitutionality is the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court, not the Senate or the Impeachment Court. 

“The plenary is not supreme, the Constitution is; and ultimately, the sovereign is - The People,” he said. 

Pimentel had earlier scored the Senate’s decision saying that the motion clearly contains dangerous language susceptible a lot of interpretations. 

"Kita naman natin sa explanation of vote ng ating mga kasama, suspend lang pala ang gusto, return ang ginamit. Return na nga ng ginamit, remand ang explanation (As we can see from the explanation of vote of our colleagues, they just wanted to suspend, but used the word 'return'. They used the word 'return' but explained using 'remand')," he said.

"Ganun kadelikado po ang lenggwahe na ginamit natin. Tapos yung gusto natin ma-achieve, madali lang yan that's achievable by an advisory (That's how dangerous the language we're using is. What we want to achieve is achievable merely through an advisory)," he added.

Gatchalian also said he voted against the motion saying he believes transparency is important.  He said he prefers the issue be tackled in "open trial" to give the prosecution and the defense the opportunity to present their side.

Meanwhile, in a Facebook post, former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay described the Senate’s recent move as consistent with the political character of impeachment proceedings.

“Impeachment is a political process, and this step taken by the Senate, though novel, fits the nature of that process,” Hilbay said in a Facebook post.

“Ultimately, all remedies are political and could very well be in the direct hands of the people themselves,” he said. 

By remanding the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte to the House of Representatives, Hilbay said it effectively gives the “complainant”—the House—the option to take a second look at the document.

However, Hilbay said that “if the House rejects the remand, the Senate has no choice but to proceed with trial.”