The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) said the Senate’s remand to the House of Representatives of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte “raises grave constitutional questions and challenges the integrity of the impeachment process.”

In a statement, PhilConsa called on the Senate “to uphold its constitutional duty and proceed with the impeachment trial in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.”

It warned that “any act or device that circumvents this duty gravely imperils our democratic institutions.”

Through its Chairman Reynato S. Puno, former chief justice of the Supreme Court (SC), PHilConsa also warned that the remand “may constitute grave abuse of discretion and risks undermining the most fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy: that Public Office is a Public Trust.”

PhilConsa, the oldest and most authoritative voice on constitutional law in the country, pointed out that “the accountability of public officials cannot be overstressed – and must never be evaded through procedural artifice.”

It said: “Once the Senate is clothed with jurisdiction as an Impeachment Court upon receipt of the Articles of Impeachment, that jurisdiction cannot be lost or suspended by mere procedural acts. It remains until final resolution or dismissal by the Court itself.”

It cited the 1997 decision of the SC which states: “Jurisdiction, once validly acquired, is not lost by subsequent happenings. It continues until the case is finally resolved or dismissed.”

It added that “this principle of continuing jurisdiction applies with full force to the Impeachment Court -- a doctrine reinforced by established practice, including the Clinton Impeachment trial before the U.S. Senate, whose model our own impeachment process follows.”

Among the constitutional concerns raised by PhilConsa against the remand were grave abuse of discretion (whether the Senate unlawfully suspended its jurisdiction already validly acquired as an impeachment court), (whether requiring the House to certify compliance with the one-year ban infringes upon the House’s sole prerogative under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution), circumlocutory delay (whether imposing novel requirements not found in the Constitution or Senate Rules constitutes a circumlocutory device designed to delay or defeat the trial), and due process and impartiality (whether raising possible defenses on behalf of the Respondent compromises the impartiality of the Senate as an Impeachment Court).

It said: “At stake is not merely the fate of one official, but the integrity of the Constitution itself. Impeachment is the people’s mechanism to enforce Accountability of Public Officials. It must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver.”