Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III said on Tuesday, June 17 that the Senate impeachment court's recent move to return the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, without dismissing or terminating the case, may open the door to a slew of legal challenges that could delay the impeachment process.

During the Kapihan sa Senado media forum, Pimentel criticized the court for creating what he described as a vague concept.

“Nag-evolve yan, dismissal [into] remand, [into] return, without dismissing or terminating the case (It evolved from dismissal, to remand, to return, without dismissing or terminating the case),” he said.

“Sinoli until such time pero hawak ko pa rin. Sauli ko sayo pero hawak ko pa rin hanggang sa may gawin ka at yung anak mo [20th Congress] (It was returned “until such time,” but I’m still holding on to it. I gave it back to you, but I’m still keeping a hold on it — until you do something, or your child does),” Pimentel said, using metaphorical language to underscore the confusion the order creates.

When asked if this ambiguity can lead to uncertainty over whether the impeachment court would convene, he said: “Mas straighfoorward yung kalendaryong yun, ngayon ginawa niya may return to sender (That calendar was more straightforward — but now, he introduced this return to sender approach),” he said, referring to the previous impeachment calendar that should have instead been followed.

“Actually, nag-iinvite ng kaso, okay file the cases, pag nag-file ng cases, di na kasalanan ng impeachment court, may TRO na kami, kinuwestyon na kami, that's the problem (Actually, it’s inviting legal cases — like, 'Okay, go ahead and file them' and once those cases are filed, the impeachment court can say, 'It’s not our fault anymore, we’ve been issued a TRO, we’re being questioned'),” he added.

He argued that the impeachment court could have issued an advisory to the House of Representatives' panel of prosecutors, requesting clarification. Instead, the court’s decision now invites scrutiny and possible litigation.

“Tapos ang gusto lang pala nila is to ask questions. Sabi ko nga eh. Request for information lang ito. Pwedeng mag-order ang court or sinabi ko nga, mas practical yung advisory na lang eh (Their intention, it turns out, was simply to ask questions. As I said, this is just a request for information. The court could have issued an order, or as I also mentioned, it would have been more practical to just release an advisory),” he explained.

“Imbes na simplehan mo yung proseso na madaling maintindihan ng lahat...Maraming ngayon pwede maka-imagine ng legal issues, hindi ba? So all the more hindi tuloy napabilis o dumiretso yung daan (Instead of simplifying the process so that everyone could easily understand it… now it opens the door for many to imagine potential legal issues, right? All the more, it didn’t speed things up or keep the process on a straight path), he added.

As of now, Pimentel said that no one has filed anything yet, noting that even lawyers and some Constitutional framers, who are strongly opposed to the decision, aren’t filing anything either because it might actually be a trap.

He added that this complication may shift focus away from the merits of the impeachment case.

Despite this, he pointed out that the House can still affirm its intent to pursue the impeachment in the 20th Congress by simply reappointing its panel of prosecutors, just as the U.S. Congress did in a similar scenario.

“Yun na yung (That will be the) manifestation that we will pursue the case,” he said.