Will VP Sara Duterte's impeachment trial push through? Senate split on SC decision
A divide has emerged among senators following the Supreme Court's decision on Friday, July 25, to declare Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment unconstitutional, citing a violation of the one-year bar rule on impeachment proceedings.
The 13-0 ruling came just days before the Senate was to begin its new session, with the vice president's political future hanging in the balance.
It has left the impeachment court's future uncertain, with some members calling for adherence, while others suggest the possibility of "disregarding" the SC's decision to proceed with a trial.
Regie Tongol, spokesperson for the Senate impeachment court, issued a statement saying the SC's ruling upheld their view that the articles of impeachment first needed to be clarified before the trial could move forward.
“This decision affirms the careful and deliberate posture taken by the Impeachment Court—that constitutional issues surrounding the Articles required clarity before trial proceedings could commence. The Court’s ruling validates the prudence and restraint exercised by the Senate majority in recognizing those legal uncertainties from the outset,” the statement read.
"The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a coequal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court," it continued.
“We now await the formal transmittal of the Supreme Court’s decision and any related guidance that may affect the Impeachment Court’s jurisdiction moving forward. The Senate remains committed to upholding constitutional order, ensuring due process, and protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions,” it added.
Senators Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, and Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada echoed this call, urging respect for the Court's decision.
"Sa mga kasamahan kong senador—trabaho na po tayo. Atupagin na natin ang kapakanan ng mamamayan. Awat muna sa pulitika!” Marcos said.
Estrada, for his part, asked colleagues to focus on the "more pressing issues" facing the country, while Padilla simply pleaded, "Magkaisa na po tayo. Napakagulo na ng mundo."
Some senators express strong reservations
While the other senators have called for deference, several others—Vicente Sotto III, Joel Villanueva, Bam Aquino, Francis Pangilinan, and Risa Hontiveros—stated that the impeachment trial must continue.
Sotto said he consulted a “legal luminary” who told him that the Senate can disregard the decision, while Villanueva said the proceedings would continue, citing the sui generis (a class of its own) nature of the Impeachment Court.
Aquino, meanwhile, called for a caucus to tackle how to proceed with respect to the SC decision that “undermines (the Senate’s) duty under the Constitution.”
“Matibay ang aking paninindigan na dapat ipagpatuloy ang impeachment trial. Bilang co-equal branch, malinaw ang mandato ng konstitusyon at kapangyarihan ng senado, kaya nararapat na irespesto ang proseso ng impeachment,” Aquino said.
This was echoed by Pangilinan, who raised concerns over the decision as it appeared to sideline the legal presumption of regularity in the acts of a co-equal branch.
“Mapapaisip na lang tayo kung ganito pa rin ba ang magiging pasya ng SC kung sinunod ng Senado ang mandato ng Saligang Batas na ‘to forthwith proceed with trial,’” he said, noting the Court had not issued any restraining order when the petition was filed months ago.
Hontiveros said she was dismayed by the SC’s decision and questioned why they decided that the House violated the one-year bar rule when only the fourth impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate.
“As the Supreme Court explained in that decision, the clear consideration behind the one-year bar rule ‘refers to the element of time, and not the number of complaints,’” she added.
House reacts
House Spokesperson Atty. Princess Abante on Friday said that although they have yet to receive the ruling, they will "review it with utmost respect once furnished." However, she emphasized the House's "constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here."
She emphasized that Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution grants the exclusive power to initiate impeachment solely to the House.
"This was firmly established in Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003) and has long stood as settled doctrine,” Abante said.
Abante warned that "judicial interference in the initiation of this process risks undermining the very principle of checks and balances." She described impeachment as a "political act rooted in the people’s will—no legal technicality should silence it," reinforcing that the House would "exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role."
"This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity. We owe it to the people to be relentless in our duty—because accountability should never be optional, no matter how high the office," the statement ended.
This was echoed by several House members who questioned the decision's implications for accountability. Akbayan party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña said that the SC is effectively becoming a "Supreme Coddler" of Duterte, warning that "the dismissal of the impeachment sets a dangerous precedent" allowing corrupt politicians to "evade accountability."
Fellow Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno stated that the SC's decision resulted in a loss for the people and a failure of accountability.
“Impeachment is about accountability. The process followed the constitution: the complaint was verified, endorsed by more than one-third of the House, and Vice President Sara Duterte is only facing one case,” Diokno said in a statement.
“There was no violation of due process, only a demand to present the truth to the Filipino people,” he added. “Along with the people, we will never stop to call for accountability on those who are accountable. We will continue to work with civil society and reform-minded leaders to defend our democracy and ensure that truth and justice prevail.”
ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio was also dismayed at the decision, noting that it is difficult to hold corrupt officials accountable in the Philippines.
"This decision gave legal blessing to the long effort of Malacanang and the Senate that are both looking for ways for the impeachment trial not to proceed since February,” Tinio said, who added that the "celebration" of the vice president "will surely be short term."
"The people will not stop to hold her accountable for the confidential funds that she misused,” he added.
Palace says 'respect' the ruling
PCO Undersecretary Claire Castro, meanwhile, stated they had yet to review the full text of the decision. Despite this, she urged the public to "respect" the SC and "place their trust in our institutions."
"The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates," she added.
The House impeached Duterte in early February, charging the vice president with graft, corruption, and an alleged assassination plot against one-time ally and former running mate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. But her defense team filed a petition arguing that a trio of earlier complaints logged against her in the House—but voted on only at the committee level—had constituted impeachment proceedings.
The Senate briefly convened an impeachment court last month, only to send the case back to the House hours later, questioning its constitutionality. (with reports from Jose Rodel Clapano, Neil Jayson Servallos, and Cecil Morella, Pam Castro / AFP)
