THE unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court last July 25, which declared as “unconstitutional” on several grounds Congress’ effort to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte further stoke the fire of national disunity with the camp of House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez that initiated the impeachment throwing all sorts of criticisms against the court and the camp of Duterte and pro-democracy groups defending the decision as a triumph for the rule of law and due process.
In the Senate, which is headed by Senate President Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero, who is a lawyer like Romualdez, he opined that the Senate is inclined to respect the decision and would no longer convene the chamber as an impeachment court, a position that is backed by most of his colleagues.
At the House, however, Romualdez directed the filing last August 4 of an appeal for the SC to reverse its decision.
“This is not an act of defiance or disrespect. It is an exercise in constitutional stewardship—an affirmation that every branch must act with fidelity to the Charter that gives us all our power.
“We act not to provoke a clash of institutions, but to prevent the erosion of the people’s right to accountability,” Congress said in a statement.
With the court’s unanimous vote that includes even President Marcos’ appointee, Associate Justice Raul Villanueva favoring the decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, an appointee of President Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III, the impeachment is now considered “good as dead” with the remotest chance of the justices reversing their stand.
Duterte is being accused of corruption that constitute betrayal of public trust for her alleged questionable disbursements of her confidential funds and the budget of the Department of Education during her stint as its secretary. What was downplayed, however, was the allegation of widespread bribery of lawmakers by the camp of Romualdez to ‘incentivize’ them into signing and railroading the petition.
It was not also clear if the appeal can stand on its own as there was no evidence it was approved by the lawmakers in the form of a resolution since Congress is a collegial body and needs the approval of the majority of its members for any of its decision to be considered valid and legal.
Gist of the decision
It can be recalled that a total of 4 impeachment complaints were filed against the Vice President, three last year and the last one last February.
The SC noted that the first three complaints were not acted upon by Congress on time and were deemed “dismissed.”
“Despite the filing of the three impeachment complaints the House of Representatives did not act on them nor refer them to the Speaker of the House until February 5, 2025, when Secretary General Reginald Velasco transmitted them to Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez,” the SC noted.
In a previous commentary, the SC noted that under its own rules, the House should have calendared the three complaints within 10 session days after they were filed.
The SC said Congress’ inaction on the first three petitions and the belated filing of the fourth complaint constitutes a violation of Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution that limits the filing of any impeachment complaint to just one complaint each year.
The fourth complaint, which is the subject of the petition by the camp of Duterte, was hastily approved by some 215 lawmakers last February 5, and immediately forwarded to the Senate for trial.
The decision noted that since the fourth impeachment complaint against the Vice President is “void ab initio” (void from the very beginning), the Senate “did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute itself into an impeachment court.”
It added the decision is “immediately executory.”
The SC said should Congress persists on impeaching the Vice President, it can do so but not earlier than on February 6, 2026.
The court also flayed Congress for violating due process by denying the Vice President the right to be heard and refute the charges against her.
“The respondent (Vice President),” the court said, “should have had the opportunity to be heard on the draft Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to the transmittal to the Senate and regardless of the number of members of the House of Representatives that have already endorsed (the complaint).”
Duterte is being accused of corruption that constitute betrayal of public trust for her alleged questionable disbursements of her confidential funds and the budget of the Department of Education during her stint as its secretary.
What was downplayed, however, was the allegation of widespread bribery of lawmakers by the camp of Romualdez to ‘incentivize’ them into signing and railroading the petition.