Senate to decide on SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment on Aug. 6 — Chiz
During the plenary session, Escudero said the date was set next week in order to give the senators 'ample and sufficient time' to study the SC ruling. This was agreed upon by the senators present in the caucus or meeting held early Tuesday afternoon.
'[We] place on record the agreement arrived upon in caucus earlier to set on a date certain the disposition of the matter pertaining to the Supreme Court decision in relation to the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte,' Escudero said.
"For the record, it was agreed in caucus that the matter will be decided upon by the Senate on August 6, 2025, when we open session on that date in order to afford ample and sufficient time to the members to study the 97-page Supreme Court decision, excluding the concurring and separate opinions filed by five or six additional magistrates of the Supreme Court,' he added.
Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court earlier declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional, saying that it was barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The high court also found that the articles violated Duterte's right to due process.
The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed.
The high court also emphasized that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Regie Tongol earlier said that the court is set to vote whether to proceed with the deliberations after receiving the high court's ruling on the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte.
The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to void the impeachment of Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
UP Law faculty members: Congress vested with prerogatives on impeachment
Individual faculty members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law on Friday expressed "grave concern" on the developments regarding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, stressing that Congress is empowered with "high prerogatives" on the impeachment process. Signed by over 80 legal experts as of August 1, the five-page joint statement of the UP Law faculty members warned that the Supreme Court decision which declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional has "consequences" that create an "incentive" for filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. "We express our conviction that Congress is constitutionally vested with high prerogatives and thus deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment. At the very least, given the House's reliance on two decades of precedents and practices, any new rules should be prospective in application," the statement read. It added, "We call on our democratic institutions to act in accordance with these fundamental principles, and to foster a full public debate on the impeachment in keeping with constitutional accountability," it added. Voting 13-0-2, the SC 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 Supreme Court ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The first three impeachment complaints were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint, the SC ruled. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC added that 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. "We the undersigned individual members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of law, express our grave concern with the developments in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte," the statement read. "[W]e warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials," it added. 'Permanent' change The faculty members noted that impeachments are "decided only upon the simple question" of whether or not the official should continue to be entrusted with public office. Since the consequence is not civil damages nor imprisonment but removal from public office, they said, elected representatives are the ones to decide on the outcome. Noting that the Constitution provides that the House has the "exclusive power to initiate" and that the Senate has the "sole power to try and decide" all cases of impeachment, the faculty members said they share the view of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) that "over-judicialization" of the process, meaning court-like procedures are laid down for Congress, "will permanently change impeachment's nature." They also argued that the House merely followed rules set by the Supreme Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, which defined initiation of impeachment complaint as filing the impeachment complaint before the House and referring it to the chamber's committee on justice. "This could not be an abuse of discretion, much less a grave one," the faculty members said. Any changes should be applied moving forward, they said, and not in Duterte's impeachment case. "If the Court intended to lay out new rules for the House, then the 'reliance of the public thereto prior to their being declared unconstitutional' calls for at least a prospective application of its decision and not the nullification of the House's actions," they said. Compliance by the House Further, they said judicial review is only for cases where there is abuse, but not in the Vice President's case because the House complied with rules previously set by the high tribunal. Likewise, the UP College of Law Faculty members backed former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who had warned that the High Court's decision on the Duterte case contradicts the Constitution's intent to make impeachments easier to initiate. "The Duterte ruling has consequences that the parties themselves did not appear to contemplate," they said, noting that the plenary now has the power to block resolutions for impeachment. "The ruling creates an incentive for the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule—a political strategy once criticized by a justice as making 'a mockery of the power of impeachment.' Narrower rulings in the past have precisely avoided these unintended consequences," they said. Due process Further, the faculty members said the House did not violate the right of the Vice President to due process because the Senate impeachment court is the proper venue to defend herself as provided by the Constitution. "While Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution requires the 'rights of persons appearing in, or affected by' legislative inquiries 'shall be respected,' no similar rule applies in Article 11, Section 3 on impeachment. Impeachment has thus never required the observance of due process that applies to administrative proceedings: the impeachment trial is itself the due process," they said. "This is not because the Constitution intended to be oppressive towards a respondent. Instead, and following congressional practice, the right to be heard of an impeachable officer is honored in the trial before the Senate," they added. Finally, the UP College of Law faculty members said that unlike in legal proceedings, the principal aim of impeachment is not to litigate a right of the impeachable officer, but to protect the public and enforce accountability. "A reading of the Constitution to further accountability requires a return to the paradigm of protecting the people and a reiteration of the principle that public office is a public trust—a sacred privilege, not a god-given right," they said. "As academics, our only client is the truth. And while the course of Vice President Duterte's impeachment has veered further away from discovering it, we write with hope that our democratic institutions will, with statesmanship and prudence, allow us, the people, to eventually find our way towards restoring accountability," they added. — Llanesca T. Panti/ VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
13 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC asked to reconsider VP Sara Duterte impeachment ruling
Former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita 'Ging' Deles, Yvonne Jereza of Magdalo Partylist, and Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudia, convenor of Tindig Pilipinas, filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court on Friday, August 1, 2025, on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. Photo by Danny Pata Some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam. 'Naniniwala po kami na maling-mali ang naging desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema (we believe that the reasons of the SC is very wrong),' petitioners Sylvia Estrada Claudio said in an ambush interview. 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. 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. The SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. However, Claudio said their complaint was not initiated. This was echoed by petitioner Teresita Quintos Deles, who said that the SC previously ruled that complaints are only initiated once deferred to the House Committee on Justice. 'By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case na sinabi na ang initiation ay kapag na defer lang sa Justice committee. Since hindi iyon nangyari, wala talagang prior initiation,' she said. (By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case where it was stated that initiation happens when it is merely deferred in the Justice committee. Since that did not happen, there was really no prior initiation.) The other petitioners are Akbayan Representative Percival Cendaña, Eugene Gonzales, Yvonne Jereza, Alicia Murphy, and Filomena Cinco. Claudio called on the Senate to continue the impeachment trial. 'Naniniwala din po kami na nag overstep ng kaunti ang ating SC dahil nag simula na ang Senado. At sa amin hong pananaw ay malinaw naman ho sa Konstitusyon na ang Senado ang may karapatan, at nag simula na po sila,' she said. (We also believe that our SC overstepped a bit because the Senate had already started. And in our view, it is clear in the Constitution that the Senate has the right, and they had already begun.) 'Sa atin pong mamamayan, nananawagan po kami na pwede naman pong i-criticize ang opinyon ng kahit sinong mataas na opisyal o institusyon, kasama na po ang SC,' she added. (To our fellow citizens, we are calling on you that it is okay to criticize the opinion of any high-ranking official or institution, including the SC.) — BAP, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
15 hours ago
- GMA Network
Palace says Congress' power of purse should not be abused
''Hindi po dapat abusuhin iyong sinasabing power of the purse at maraming magkaroon... kung mayroon mang insertions at hindi mapapakinabangan na tunay," Castro said. Congress's power of the purse should not be abused, Malacañang said on Friday, adding that President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. didn't want congressional insertions that will not benefit the public included in the proposed general appropriations law. Palace Press Officer Usec. Atty. Claire Castro made the remark when asked to react to President Francis "Chiz" Escudero, who stated that the executive branch's National Expenditure Program was subject to changes during the budget process in Congress. ''Hindi po dapat abusuhin iyong sinasabing power of the purse at maraming magkaroon... kung mayroon mang insertions at hindi mapapakinabangan na tunay," Castro said. "Iyan lamang po ang gusto ng Pangulo, kaya gusto niya maging malinis at budget at hangga't maaari iyong bicam conference with regard to the conference dito sa budget, 2026 budget ay bukas sa publiko,'' she added. (The power of the purse should be abused. The President doesn't want insertions that will not benefit the people. The President wants a transparent budget, and as much as possible, the bicameral committee conference on the budget should be open to the public.) Castro said the President and the Cabinet secretaries were involved in the exhaustive preparation of the NEP. "At kung numan po ang nabuo dito, ibig sabihin po, iyan po ang dapat na paglalaanan ng pondo,'' Castro said. (Whatever was mentioned here should be allotted funds.) The NEP or the President's budget is submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives at the start of the appropriations process. It is the basis of Congress's budget hearings to craft the General Appropriations Act, or the national budget for the following year. Marcos, in his State of the Nation Address (SONA 2025) on Monday, said he would return a general appropriations bill that was not in line with the NEP. Escudero said the NEP was not set in stone. 'Ang panukalang budget ay nanggagaling hindi lamang sa executive pero pati sa Kongreso. Hindi naman porket binalangkas ng executive lahat 'yun ay tama na. Hindi naman porket binalangkas ng executive lahat 'yun ay hindi na pwedeng baguhin at tila nakaukit na sa bato,' Escudero said. (The proposed budget comes not only from the executive but also from Congress. Just because it was the executive that outlined everything, all of those are already right and cannot be changed.) 'Ang marapat na dapat baguhin, dapat baguhin dahil 'yung mga kalihim mismo ng Pangulo ay humihiling sa Kongreso ng dagdag o pagbabago sa kani-kanilang budget," he added. "So siguro kung may ganyang uri ng kautusan ang Pangulo dapat pagsabihan din niya ang kanyang mga kalihim na kapag may sinumite ng budget ang DBM para sa kanilang departamento, 'wag na silang humirit pa dahil bago sila makahirit ang pagkukunan ay ibang departamento rin,' Escudero said. (What should be changed, must be changed because the President's cabinet secretaries themselves are asking Congress for an increase or change in their respective budgets. So maybe the President should also tell his secretaries that when the DBM submits a budget for their department, they should stop asking for an increase because the source for that increase will be obtained from the budget of another agency.) Escudero has denied claims that there are billions of pesos worth of insertions in the 2025 national budget. He said the reports were part of a 'demolition job' in connection with his earlier bid to retain his Senate presidency post. Marcos, in his SONA, said that the government would operate under a reenacted budget in 2026 as he warned that he would veto a proposed budget bill that would not be in harmony with his administration's programs and priorities. –NB, GMA Integrated News
