SC urged anew to junk Sara Duterte bid to dismiss impeach raps
In his motion to intervene, Cendaña said the Vice President's petition is legally infirm because only one impeachment complaint was initiated against her—a submission which he said is compliant with the Charter.
"The Vice President's petition is legally unsound. Ang reklamo nila, na-violate raw ang one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints. Apat ang impeachment complaints na na-file, pero isa lang doon ang initiated, at 'yun ang verified complaint na ipinasa ng more than one-third ng House members," Ceñdana said in a statement.
(The Vice President's petition is legally unsound. They argue that the one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints was violated. Four impeachment complaints were filed, but only one was initiated, and that is the verified complaint that was passed by more than one-third of House members.)
Cendaña cited the Supreme Court decision on the Francisco v. House of Representatives, wherein the High Court ruled that an impeachment complaint is initiated either by: (1) the act of filing a complaint and its referral or endorsement of the complaint to the House Committee on Justice, or (2) the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment.
"Minabuti nating mag-file ng motion to intervene dahil malapit nang magsimula ang session ng 20th Congress. Naniniwala tayong sa Senado ang tamang venue para litisin ang impeachment complaint ni VP Sara—hindi sa Supreme Court. Kung dinidinig ng mataas na korte ang petition ng VP, dapat mas dinggin nila ang sambayanan," Cendaña said.
(We filed a motion to intervene because the 20th Congress is about to start. We believe that the Senate is the appropriate venue to try the impeachment case against the Vice President, not the Supreme Court. If the High Court is hearing out the Vice President, the more it should listen to the call of the people.)
"The three impeachment complaints were not referred to the Committee on Justice and do not qualify as initiated complaints since they were archived by the House plenary after the fourth impeachment complaint was endorsed by more than one-third of the House members. Only the fourth complaint qualifies as such. Therefore, lahat ng ginawa sa House ay ayon Rules of Impeachment na nakabatay sa Saligang Batas," Cendaña added.
(The House's actions on the impeachment complaints are all in accordance with the Constitution.)
GMA News Online has requested comment from Duterte's legal team and the Office of the Vice President, but these have yet to respond as of posting time.
Cendaña said the Supreme Court has the duty to ensure accountability of public officials.
"Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution and its doctrines? Or will it save Sara and other government officials who abuse power? Nagbabantay ang taumbayan (The people are watching)," Cendaña said.
Earlier, the House of Representatives also asked the Supreme Court to junk the Vice President's petition, arguing that questions about the impeachment are best discussed and resolved before the Senate impeachment court.
The SC required the House to submit information regarding the status of the first three impeachment complaints filed against Duterte, the exact dates these were endorsed, and whether the House Secretary General possesses discretion on when to transmit these to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
In a notice dated July 8, the SC en banc consolidated the petition filed by Duterte against the validity and constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint against her and the petition filed by lawyer Israelito Torreon and others seeking to declare the articles of impeachment null and void. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- GMA Network
Chiz to House: Senate not a playground to run after foes
"To these people, I say this, the Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme,' Escudero said. Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero on Wednesday asked members of the House of Representatives to refrain from trying to use the Senate as a tool to go after political adversaries. Escudero made the remark as he explained his vote for archiving the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte. 'To the House of Representatives I say, do not allow yourselves to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of a few who did things haphazardly, gravely abused their discretion, and violated due process, rights under the Constitution as found by the High Court itself,' the Senate president said. 'In spite of all these, you expect everyone to roll over in obedience. When we did not, you moved hell and high water to destroy personalities, malign reputations, and tarnish institutions," he added. "To these people, I say this, the Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme,' Escudero said. Escudero also said that he is not willing to play such politicians' game, stressing that he will 'never bow to a mob [and] never cower to the shrillest of voices.' To recall, the House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Duterte, in return, had entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' Recently, the Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said it was not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. The House , through the Office of the Solicitor General, then filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to reverse the SC decision. The lower chamber argued it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case.
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- GMA Network
Hontiveros names instances when SC overturned its rulings
Senator Risa Hontiveros on Wednesday named two instances when the Supreme Court (SC) overturned its rulings as senators debated on whether to abide by the high court's decision that declared unconstitutional the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte. 'The SC has reversed a unanimous decision in a lot of instances before,' Hontiveros said. One of these was the case of the League of Cities of the Philippines vs. the Commission on Elections (Comelec), where the SC En Banc granted a motion for reconsideration and declared 16 Cityhood Laws as constitutional in 2010. In 2008, the SC initially declared unconstitutional the creation of 16 new cities and ordered the Comelec against the holding of a plebiscite pursuant to cityhood laws in these municipalities. The SC in December 2009 reversed the 2008 decision and ruled that the towns can be declared as cities. However, in 2010, it made a second reversal and reinstated its 2008 decision. In its ruling in February 2011, the SC denied with finality that the 16 towns can be declared as cities. Hontiveros also mentioned the case of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications Inc. and others vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia of the Philippines. 'Original decision, unanimous, December 8, 2015. Reversed unanimously on MR too, July 26, 2016,' Hontiveros said. 'Hindi lang po tulad nung sinabi ni minority leader na there's always a first time. It has happened before. So 'yung ganitong klaseng milagro na hinahanap, posibleng mangyari din po dito sa kasong pinag uusapan natin,' she added. (It's not just like what the minority leader said, that there's always a first time. It has happened before. So this kind of miracle being sought is also possible in the case we are discussing.) This came after Senator Rodante Marcoleta questioned whether even Supreme Court justice would overturn the ruling, considering that it was unanimous. The SC had ruled unanimously that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. Meanwhile, with 19 votes, the Senate voted to transfer to the archives the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate archives articles of impeachment vs. Sara Duterte
"Let this chamber be remembered not for the passions we inflamed, but the principles we upheld,' Escudero said. The Senate on Monday voted to transfer to the archives the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, following the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) blocking the impeachment trial of Duterte. In the explanation of his "yes" vote, Senate President Francis Escudero said that he would 'never bow to a mob [and] never cower to the shrillest of voices.' 'Let history, Mr. President, record that in this moment, we chose the Constitution, we chose the rule of law by defending the integrity of the Supreme Court and maintaining the system of checks and balances under our republican system of government," Escudero said. "Let this chamber be remembered not for the passions we inflamed, but the principles we upheld,' he added. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Vicente Sotto III and other members of the minority argued that the Senate should wait for the decision of the Supreme Court on the motion for reconsideration that the Office of the Solicitor General filed on behalf of the House of Representatives To recall, the House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Duterte, in return, had entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' Recently, the Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The high court said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings because the articles of impeachment were void. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. The House then filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to reverse the SC decision. The lower chamber argued it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. Before voting on the motion of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, as amended by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Joel Villanueva, the Senate also voted to dismiss the motion of Senate Minority Leader Sen. Vicente Sotto III "to table" the Marcoleta motion. 'With five affirmative votes, 19 negative votes, the motion to table the motion of Senator [Sotto] is lost,' Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero said. The Senate minority leader voted in favor of his motion, saying he has voted numerous times with the minority. 'I know that it will be a vote in the minority, but I have always voted in the minority on many issues in the Senate since 1992 up to the present. I always prayed I was wrong. Unfortunately, I was always right,' Sotto said. 'May God have mercy on your decision,' he added. The SC previously ruled unanimously that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. The SC also ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. It said that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute itself into an impeachment court. –NB, GMA Integrated News
