Impeachment almost impossible if Philippine Supreme Court doesn't revise its verdict, says rep Terry Ridon
Ridon, in an ambush interview at the Batasang Pambansa complex, explained that with the SC decision, an impeachable official can just ask a friend in the House of Representatives to file a weak impeachment case against him or her, and this will automatically kick in the one-year prohibition period on impeachment proceedings.
On July 25, SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the Articles of Impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate was deemed unconstitutional by the high tribunal for violating the 1987 Constitution's one-year ban rule.
'I think this sentiment was played out in the last couple of days – the actual objections of lawyers, lawyers' groups, people's organisations and our esteemed luminaries – about the effects of this particular decision, and I will reiterate it today. If the Supreme Court stands on this decision and it does not reconsider the ruling, nobody in the Philippines would be impeached,' Ridon, a lawyer by profession, told reporters.
'Because any high-ranking official — a president, vice president, Supreme Court justice – if they have a friend who is a House member, they will endorse a complaint, ask them to file a complaint against me. Whether or not the House addresses that, the one year ban period starts,' he added.
According to Ridon, it is an 'unfortunate situation which we hope that the Supreme Court will reconsider.'
On February 5, Duterte was impeached after 215 House lawmakers from the 19th Congress filed and signed a fourth complaint, which was hinged on allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices, threats to ranking officials, and other possible violations of the Constitution.
The Articles of Impeachment were immediately forwarded to the Senate on the same day, as the 1987 Constitution requires a trial to start forthwith if at least one-third of all House members — or just 102 out of 306 — have signed and endorsed the petition.
In February, two petitions seeking to stop the impeachment complaints were filed before the SC.
The first was from Mindanao-based lawyers who claimed that the House did not observe the Constitution's rules, which require it to act on filed impeachment complaints within 10 session days.
The first impeachment complaint was filed in December 2024 and was only referred to the House committee on rules on February 5.
The House, however, asserted in its reply to the SC that all the impeachment complaints were addressed within 10 session days, noting that the term 'session days' should not be mistaken with 'calendar days' or 'working days.'
In its explanation, the House presented a table showing when the sessions were held. The day that the first complaint was submitted to House Secretary General Reginald Velasco's office, December 2, was the 26th Session Day of the 19th Congress' Third Regular Session.
On the other hand, the three impeachment complaints were forwarded by Velasco to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez on February 5, and these were brought to the plenary on the same day — which was the 36th Session day of the Third Regular Session.
The House believes this means it took exactly 10 session days before the first complaint was transmitted.
While the Articles of Impeachment were deemed unconstitutional, SC clarified that it does not absolve the vice president, adding that the next impeachment complaint can be filed against the vice president by February 6, 2026.
The House is expected to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC's decision regarding the impeachment.
The Senate, on the other hand, is scheduled to tackle the matter on Wednesday (Aug 6). - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
7 hours ago
- The Sun
US court upholds bar on LA immigration arrests without probable cause
A federal appeals court late on Friday affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring U.S. government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on peoples' appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and U.S. Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge last month blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on 'apparent race or ethnicity,' speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a 'bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.' The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. 'The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now,' she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, welcomed the ruling in statement: 'This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region.' - Reuters
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Analysis-Leader for life? El Salvador's Bukele headed that way, critics say
(Reuters) -There was no shortage of warning signs that El Salvador President Nayib Bukele would attempt to stay in power indefinitely, his critics say. There was the time Bukele stormed the legislative assembly with armed soldiers during his first year in office. Or a year after that, when his allies in the congress removed top Supreme Court judges and the attorney general and replaced them with Bukele loyalists. Then last year, Bukele ran for a consecutive term as president after the new Supreme Court judges reinterpreted the constitution. But the final tipping point came on Thursday afternoon, when a little-known legislator from Bukele's ruling New Ideas party announced a proposal to amend the constitution to allow indefinite presidential reelection. Bukele allies lined up one by one to sign a petition that would allow the assembly to vote on the legislation immediately, without it first going to committee for analysis or public debate. A mere three hours passed from the time the legislation was introduced until the moment it became law. Fifty-seven lawmakers voted in favor, with three in opposition. Ernesto Castro, the assembly president, framed the vote as a win for democracy. "The people will decide how long they want a leader to remain in office," Castro wrote on X. "With these decisive measures, we are ensuring a stronger, fairer and more efficient democracy." Marcela Villatoro, one of the three legislators to vote against the measure, countered late on Thursday: "Democracy has died in El Salvador today." The constitutional change also lengthened the presidential term by a year to six, eliminated runoffs, and moved up the next presidential election by two years to 2027, leaving little room for Bukele's scattered opposition to find a candidate. DEEPENING CRACKDOWN Bukele, who swept to power in 2019, is extremely popular in El Salvador because of his strong-arm tactics that have eliminated the country's once-powerful street gangs. That, combined with his effective crackdown on opponents, virtually guarantees that the 44-year-old will remain in office until at least 2033 — and perhaps many years after that. Human rights groups accuse Bukele of widespread abuses and corruption, and a flood of rights activists and journalists have fled the country in recent months after two outspoken critics were arrested and jailed. A spokesperson for Bukele did not respond to requests for comment about the constitutional change, whether he plans to run for re-election, or the opposition's assertion that democracy was being destroyed. In the U.S., El Salvador's constitutional amendment was largely met with silence. Bukele is Trump's strongest ally in Latin America, a relationship cemented by an agreement reached in March for El Salvador to house 238 Venezuelans deported from the U.S. in a maximum-security prison. In April, Trump called Bukele "one hell of a president." U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not respond to a request for comment on the constitutional change. "The U.S. government is shielding the Bukele regime with its silence," said Gina Romero, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association. "Bukele has complete control of the courts, the congress, the media and the narrative. If that's not autocracy I don't know what is." In El Salvador, the reaction to Thursday's measure was muted. Democracy is relatively new in the country -- it was established during 1992 peace accords that ended a brutal 12-year civil war -- and many Salvadorans consider it a failure given the power that gangs amassed during that time. The news appeared on the front pages of the country's most popular papers. But there were no protests, and many people were more focused on getting ready for a week-long vacation, with government offices closed next week. Many of Bukele's most outspoken critics have fled the country, including an estimated 100 journalists and human rights activists. In July, the country's leading human rights group suspended operations. Bertha Maria Deleon, a lawyer and activist who worked for Bukele from 2015 to 2019, said Bukele's rise to power was fueled by what she saw at the time as a legitimate desire to improve El Salvador. He promised to end corruption after three consecutive presidents were accused of embezzling millions of dollars of public funds. Deleon broke with Bukele after he occupied the parliament in 2020. She said everything he has done since then has been an effort to consolidate power. "Ever since that takeover of parliament, he clearly began to execute the dictators' manual," she said. (Reporting by Emily Green; Editing by Christian Plumb and Rosalba O'Brien)
Borneo Post
8 hours ago
- Borneo Post
More pragmatic to work with PH - Hajiji
Hajiji replying to reporters at the recent Gagasan Rakyat annual convention. While the 'Go solo!' proponents continue their call, on the other side of the fence, the 'No solo!' advocates are also drumming up for support! The former are those who insist on fighting for independence from political meddling in Sabah by Peninsular-based parties, and continuing to push forward with the 'Sabah for Sabahans' slogan, while the latter feel such a desire, while noble, is not the best choice to win the next state general election (PRN17). Heading this group is no less than the Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Panglima Hajiji Hj Noor, who feels that the best strategic choice to win PRN17 and retain governance of Sabah is by keeping GRS intact and strengthened it with a strategic partnership with Pakatan Harapan (PH). He has assured this writer that GRS will definitely not be partnering with Barisan Nasional, hence denying the announcement by Umno President Datuk Seri Dr Zahid Hamidi that 'BN will maintain alliance with PH in the next Sabah state general election.' That might as well be because it's hard to picture GRS leaders in the same campaign team with Sabah Umno, headed by Datuk Seri Panglima Bung Mokhtar who once launched the infamous Kinabalu Move (Langkah Kinabalu) coup attempt against the GRS government. Hajiji sympathizes with those who are passionate about going solo, but he says the pragmatic approach to the critical D-Day for the next state government is to work with Pakatan Harapan. He reasons that the obvious tactical advantage with working the PH is the added strength for GRS which will predominate the power balance with complete alignment of the three racial groupings in Sabah – the Momogun, Muslim and Chinese voters. He sees that the PH will bring in the DAP with the pull-in power to attract the Chinese voters, a strength no local Chinese party has. As he has always maintained, Sabah's governance must continue a close co-operation with the federal government for continued development, and partnership with PH in the PRN17 will ensure election victory and pre-seal close state-federal relations post-election. 'We need to be pragmatic and not be unduly influenced by emotion,' he said. 'Going solo may look heroic but that will be a path with huge potentials for mistakes!' He is not alone in his view. In a viral write-up by Usno Chief Information Officer, Iskandar Zulkarnain Ismail, he asserts that 'Let us not allow our common cause to be divided while our political opponents quietly reorganise to reclaim what we built. Let Sabahans see STAR, PBS, USNO and all GRS components rise as one, with clarity, maturity and determination — not out of frustration, but from a place of purpose and people's mandate. As Robert Greene wrote in The 48 Laws of Power, 'Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.' Our opponents are not attacking us directly — they are striking at our unity, hoping we scatter ourselves. Let us not oblige them. In the end, unity is not submission. To struggle within GRS is not to betray principles. To defend our home is not to isolate ourselves. It is to build collective strength, so our political house remains unshakable, and Sabah's future remains in Sabahan hands.' Another write-up forwarded to me by Usno President Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, opines that 'going 'solo' in a five or sixcornered fight may sound heroic, but the number works against voters, especially newcomers to the ballot box. When the field is splintered, a candidate can scrape through with barely eight or ten percent of the vote, meaning each ballot counts for less and whole communities risk being represented by someone most people never chose …. 'Beyond the numbers, frequent changes in government trigger a cascade of administrative resets: every time a new ruling bloc takes over, files are reopened, tenders reviewed, and projects paused. The PanBorneo Highway's stopstart history is a textbook example. Tens of thousands of commuters and businesses waited years while successive administrations rechecked paperwork instead of laying asphalt. Instability also chills federal support. Like it or not, Malaysia's treasury sits in Kuala Lumpur; when Sabah's leadership keeps revolving, officials in Putrajaya grow reluctant to release large, multiyear allocations, unsure whether the next state cabinet will even honour existing agreements. Shut the door on constructive dialogue, and Sabah slides to the back of the funding queue while other states with steadier governance move ahead. In short, a solo crusade may satisfy an urge for defiance, but it fragments voter power, stalls essential projects, and risks freezing out the very development funds firsttime voters want to see invested in their future. As such, GRS leaders and supporters appear to be already split. PBS has repeatedly made the assurance about its loyalty to GRS while STAR has gone along with the flow in GRS with a sizable segment of its members wanting a different path, echoing out the solo dream. But for all we know, Hajiji's choice to continue aligning with PH may actually be the most practical, logical and pragmatic – and wise – approach towards ensuring GRS keeps the seat of government post-PRN17. While cynics may speak negatively against his decision, he may eventually be proven right. His task now, of course, is the sell the idea to all GRS leaders and the people to ensure his formula for victory works out and ultimately solidifying his legacy as a statesman with the record as the longest-serving assemblyman.
