SC asked to reconsider ruling on VP Sara impeachment, hold oral arguments
The letter, addressed to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, has more than 100 signatories as they also called on the High Court to hold oral arguments about the matter.
'Sa bigat ng impact ng desisyon ng korte, nararapat na magpatawag ng mga sesyon ang korte para sa publikong oral argument hinggil sa nasabing kaso, upang higit na mapagusapan ang iba't ibang perspektiba hinggil dito,' the petitioners said in the letter.
(Due to the impact of the court's decision, the court should call for sessions for public oral argument regarding the said case so that the different perspectives on the matter can be further discussed.)
'Umaasa kami na sa pamamagitan ng publikong oral arguments, makakakita ng sapat na liwanag at bagong insights ang korte para baliktarin ang desisyon at bigyaang-daan ang kagyat na pagsasabalikat ng Senado sa konstitusyonal nilang tungkulin na agarang isagawa ang impeachment trial ni Vice President Duterte,' they added.
(We are hoping that through public oral arguments, the court will gain new insights to overturn the decision and allow the Senate to immediately carry out its constitutional duty to immediately conduct the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte.)
Concerned citizens file a letter-petition asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling on the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte pic.twitter.com/cliJox0T4d — Joahna Lei Casilao (@joahnacasilao) August 5, 2025
They also expressed support for the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives last week. The House argued that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case.
In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with 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.
'Pagpapahirap'
In their letter, the petitioners argued that the House has the sole authority to begin all cases of impeachment. They also argued that the SC's ruling imposed additional requirements on the process that are not under the Constitution.
'Bunsod ng dagdag kahingian na wala sa Saligang Batas ay magiging mas mahirap at mas mabagal na ang takbo ng anumang impeachment complaint,' the letter read.
(Due to the added requirements not found in the Constitution, the progress of any impeachment complaint will become more difficult and slower.)
'Ang ganitong pagpapahirap sa proseso ng impeachment ay maaring maituring na isang kaso ng conflict of interest dahil ang mga justice ng Katas-taasang Hukuman ay impeachable na mga opisyal din,' it added.
(This kind of making the impeachment process more difficult can be considered a case of conflict of interest because the justices of the Supreme Court are also impeachable officials.)
Aside from this, the petitioners argued that the rights of the public should have more weight in the impeachment process.
'Sa proseso at mekanismo ng impeachment sa Pilipinas, laging mas matimbang at dapat katigan ng korte ang karapatan ng sambayanang Pilipino na agad maalis sa pwesto ang impeachable na opisyal kaysa sa anumang teknikalidad,' the letter read.
(In the process and mechanism of impeachment in the Philippines, the right of the Filipino people to immediately remove an impeachable official from office should always carry more weight and be upheld by the court than any technicality.) —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
5 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
6 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
7 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
