VP Sara asks SC to dismiss House appeal on impeachment complaint
In her comment, Duterte said the House's arguments were 'mere diversions obsessed with trivia and blind to the decision's genuine core reasoning.'
'This fixation on peripheral details downplays the legitimate issue in this case, namely, that the HOR committed grave abuse of discretion and deliberately did away with constitutionally imposed limitations to its power to impeach,' the comment said.
Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected to the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment.
In its July 25, 2025 ruling, the SC said the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. It ruled that the one-year ban on multiple impeachment proceedings is reckoned from the time a complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable.
As a result, the SC said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.
The House filed the motion for reconsideration a day before the Senate archived the impeachment complaint in light of the SC ruling.
The House argued that the archiving of the first three complaints was done after the transmittal of the fourth complaint, thus not initiating the one-year ban.
Duterte said that while this is true, it is misleading to suggest that the court based its ruling on a misapprehension of the sequence.
Aside from this, she said that the SC did not err when it said that the fourth impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote.
'A perusal of its own Rules on Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings betrays the HOR's assertions. A plain reading of Rule II, Section 2 thereof, reveals that even the second mode of impeachment requires a subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice,' she said.
Duterte said that it was 'more absurd' for the House to claim that the first three impeachment complaints were not dismissed even after the transmittal of the fourth complaint, as the House still had numerous session days ahead.
'This contention collapses under the weight of its own logic and the HOR's own record. The archival of the first 3 prior impeachment complaints on February 5, 2025, after it had already decided to push forward with its preferred fourth impeachment complaint, was a deliberate act of disposition by the HOR itself,' she said.
'Whether the adjournment of that session was temporal or sine die is immaterial. The fact remains that the respondent HOR, by its own doing, formally set those complaints aside.''
The vice president said the arguments presented by the House have all been thoroughly considered and resolved by the high court.
Duterte also said that the argument of the House that a new ruling on impeachment cases should be applied prospectively is wrong.
"Jurisprudence dictates that prospectivity shields those outside the case from what might be unfair consequences for them. It does not grant blanket amnesty to the parties whose conduct is precisely found to be constitutionally void, as in this case," she said.
"To permit respondent HOR to claim shelter under the prospectivity application of doctrine is to condone, rather than correct, their grave abuse of the impeachment process." –VBL, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
Civil society groups want more active role in budget process
The House of Representatives begins its scrutiny of the proposed P6.793-trillion national budget for 2026 on August 18, 2025. Photo: House of Representatives Civil society organizations (CSOs) are calling for a more active participation in the budget process. Last month House leaders said CSOs—defined by the UN as non-profit, voluntary citizens' groups organized on a local, national or international level, driven by people with a common interest, such as non-government organizations—would be allowed at the deliberations on the national budget, from the committee and plenary level to the bicameral conference committee, with one saying that their presence would not be "token participation." On Tuesday, CSOs stressed this point. "What we had po in mind was really genuine participation. Yung hindi lang po dekorasyon or hindi lang token, hindi lang observer kumbaga. Ang prinopose po talaga namin ay may role po ang civil societies na magbigay ng inputs, magbigay ng feedback doon sa budget process," People's Budget Coalition advisor Adolfo Jose Montesa said in an online interview. (What we had in mind was really genuine participation. Not just being there as decoration or as tokens, not just as observers. What we proposed is a role for civil societies to give input and feedback on the budget process.) "Gusto po sana namin ay posibleng maging resource persons sa mga committee hearings, posibleng mag-submit ng position papers, at makarinig ng feedback mula sa committee chairs, " Montesa added. (We would like to be resource persons at committee hearings, possibly submit position papers, and hear feedback from the committee chairs.) Social Watch Philippines agrees. "Yung sinasabi namin na magiging resource person, yun po ay during the budget deliberations sa committee level," the group's senior budget specialist Alice Quitalig said (When we say being resource persons, we mean during the budget deliberations at the committee level.) According to a memorandum circular issued by House Secretary General Reginald Velasco, CSOs accredited to take part in the budget process are allowed to "observe budget deliberations both at the Committee and Plenary levels, access budget briefing documents/materials presented during the Committee and Plenary deliberations, submit written position papers or recommendations within specified deadlines, present consolidated sectoral positions during designated stages of the process." 'Opportunity to speak' CSOs were acknowledged at the opening of the budget deliberations at the session hall of the House of Representatives on Monday morning. But when the deliberations were transferred to the Romualdez Hall in the afternoon, Akbayan Party-list Representative Perci Cendaña noted their absence. The CSOs were allowed to enter afterwards. "Doon sa nakita natin na initial na implementation kahapon, bitin na bitin tayo in terms of genuine transparency and participation," he said in an online interview. "Ang mangyari, baka benchwarmer sila." (From what we saw in the initial implementation yesterday, we were left wanting in terms of genuine transparency and participation. They might end up just being benchwarmers.) Cendaña wants the current guidelines improved. "Dapat meron silang opportunity to speak during the budget process. Kasi doon sa current guidelines, lumalabas na parang sila ay magsa-submit lamang na kanilang mga position papers at wala ngang malinaw na proseso kung paano i-consider yung mga position papers na yan," he said. (They should be given the opportunity to speak during the budget process. In the current guidelines, it looks like they can only submit position papers and there is no clear process on how these papers will be considered.) Asking questions CSOs also want to be involved in the budget process at the bicameral conference committee level. "Ang panawagan namin diyan ay open bicameral conference committee. Ibig sabihin po, kami po ay maiimbitahan sa lahat ng sessions ng bicameral conference committee," Quitalig said. "Siyempre, kailangan meron din yang transcript ng meeting. And hopefully, kahit kami rin, gusto namin meron ding annotation ng legislators' amendment. Yun po yung transparency part," she added. (Our request is an open bicameral conference committee. What we mean is that we are also invited to all the sessions of the bicameral conference committee. And we must have a transcript of the meeting and annotations of the legislators' amendments. That would be the transparency part.) One workaround suggested by the CSOs is to request members of the House Committee on Appropriations to ask questions for them. "Well, pupuwede na habang hindi pa napaplantsa nang maayos itong proseso, ang pwedeng stopgap measure natin ay mag-yield kami bilang mga members of the House ng aming time para makapagtatanong yung mga civil society organizations o kaya naman padaanin sa amin yung kanilang mga tanong. So that is workable. Pero sa dulo, ang gusto natin ay institutional reform. Kasi pagka ganyan, parang depende na naman doon sa whims ng representative kung iyi-yield ba niya o hindi, na para bang utang na loob pa nila na binigay sa kanila yung oras," Cendaña said. (Well, while the process has still not been ironed out, a stopgap measure could be for us to yield our time so that the CSOs can ask questions, or ask the questions through us. That is workable. But in the end, wheat we want is institutional reform. Because if the CSOs have to depend on the whims of the representative on whether they would yield their time or not, it would come off as they would be owed a debt of gratitude for giving them the time.) People's review CSOs also want a longer period to conduct a People's Budget Review. Appropriations Committee Chair Mika Suansing of Nueva Ecija earlier said CSOs would be given one day for this. "We should organize, we will organize a People's Budget Review pero hindi lang dapat siya naka-encapsulate sa one day. Kasi ang daming concerns ng different sectors. Nandiyan yung health, education, environment, transportation. So baka magkulang ang isang araw. We need to allocate more time and space para discuss lahat ng issues na ito," Montesa said. (We should organize, we will organize a People's Budget Review, but it should not be encapsulated in just one day. There are so many concerns from different sectors: health, education, environment, transportation. One day might not be enough. We need to allocate more time and space to discuss all these issues.) "One day will not be enough. It has to be a constant presence. Yung civil society organizations have to be a constant presence in the whole budget process para tiyakin na transparent talaga ito [to ensure that this process is actually transparent]," Cendaña concurred. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
VP Sara asks SC to dismiss House appeal on impeachment complaint
Vice President Sara Duterte has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the House of Representatives' (HOR) appeal on its ruling that declared the impeachment complaint against her unconstitutional. In her comment, Duterte said the House's arguments were 'mere diversions obsessed with trivia and blind to the decision's genuine core reasoning.' 'This fixation on peripheral details downplays the legitimate issue in this case, namely, that the HOR committed grave abuse of discretion and deliberately did away with constitutionally imposed limitations to its power to impeach,' the comment said. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected to the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. In its July 25, 2025 ruling, the SC said the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. It ruled that the one-year ban on multiple impeachment proceedings is reckoned from the time a complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. As a result, the SC said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The House filed the motion for reconsideration a day before the Senate archived the impeachment complaint in light of the SC ruling. The House argued that the archiving of the first three complaints was done after the transmittal of the fourth complaint, thus not initiating the one-year ban. Duterte said that while this is true, it is misleading to suggest that the court based its ruling on a misapprehension of the sequence. Aside from this, she said that the SC did not err when it said that the fourth impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote. 'A perusal of its own Rules on Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings betrays the HOR's assertions. A plain reading of Rule II, Section 2 thereof, reveals that even the second mode of impeachment requires a subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice,' she said. Duterte said that it was 'more absurd' for the House to claim that the first three impeachment complaints were not dismissed even after the transmittal of the fourth complaint, as the House still had numerous session days ahead. 'This contention collapses under the weight of its own logic and the HOR's own record. The archival of the first 3 prior impeachment complaints on February 5, 2025, after it had already decided to push forward with its preferred fourth impeachment complaint, was a deliberate act of disposition by the HOR itself,' she said. 'Whether the adjournment of that session was temporal or sine die is immaterial. The fact remains that the respondent HOR, by its own doing, formally set those complaints aside.'' The vice president said the arguments presented by the House have all been thoroughly considered and resolved by the high court. Duterte also said that the argument of the House that a new ruling on impeachment cases should be applied prospectively is wrong. "Jurisprudence dictates that prospectivity shields those outside the case from what might be unfair consequences for them. It does not grant blanket amnesty to the parties whose conduct is precisely found to be constitutionally void, as in this case," she said. "To permit respondent HOR to claim shelter under the prospectivity application of doctrine is to condone, rather than correct, their grave abuse of the impeachment process." –VBL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
SC affirms acquittal of Datu Akmad Ampatuan in Maguindanao massacre case
The Supreme Court has affirmed the acquittal of Datu Akmad "Tato" Ampatuan Sr. in the Maguindanao massacre case. Although Ampatuan, son-in-law of the late Ampatuan patriarch Andal Sr., attended the meetings where the murder was plotted and even pledged his support, the SC First Division decided that he did not carry out any actions that advanced the plot. 'For purposes of conspiracy, an act is considered overt if it is done in furtherance thereof, i.e., if it promotes, advances, or facilitates the progress of the conspiratorial plan,' the SC said. 'Statements made in agreement with the plot should be distinguished from those made in furtherance thereof. Mere approval or acquiescence is not tantamount to furtherance and is not sufficient to convict,' it added. The SC said that evidence of the actual commission of an unlawful act is required. 'Datu Akmad's approval could hardly be said to be indispensable. Even without it, the plan would still have been carried out,' it said. The SC said that the prosecution failed to prove that Ampatuan exerted moral ascendancy over the conspirators so as to move them to execute the conspiracy. As the son-in-law of Andal Sr., one of the principal accused, Ampatuan is exempt from liability even if he could be deemed an accessory to the crime, it added, citing Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code. 'This by no means signifies his innocence. Rather, the law acknowledges that blood ties and the preservation of one's family name compel one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in the article,' it said. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, was promulgated in January and made public in August. –VBL, GMA Integrated News
