Sara Duterte after SC ruling: We'll stand vs greedy leaders who'll bring PH down
'Our country deserves better, and we shall stand tall, strong, and resilient against leaders whose greed will bring down our homeland. We deserve better,' the Vice President said in a statement.
This came after the high court, voting 13-0, 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 SC also found that the articles violated her right to due process.
Duterte thus thanked members of her defense team for taking on her case 'even when no one else was willing to stand by [her].'
She also extended gratitude to the petitioners 'for having the conviction to challenge the abuses of the House of Representatives.'
'To those whose voices rang out in dissent against persecution — thank you. Your courage to speak the truth has been a source of strength. And to the parents, children, and silent supporters who offered their prayers for justice — thank you. Your quiet faith lifts me up,' Duterte added.
The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed.
The SC had 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.
The Senate is set to discuss the SC decision on August 6, 2025, according to Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero on Tuesday.
The House of Representatives, meanwhile, 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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- GMA Network
Jinggoy: At least 19 senators to abide by SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said 19 to 20 senators are likely to adhere to the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) that blocked the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. "Karamihan ng sentimyento ng kapwa senador ko (The sentiment of most of my fellow senators) is to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court," Estrada said, noting that the matter was discussed during the senators' caucus on Tuesday. "Unang-una sa body language, pangalawa sa salita nila, mahahalata mo naman kung sino eh," he added. (One can discern where they stand based on their body language and their words.) Voting 13-0-2, the SC last week 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 is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero earlier shared his personal opinion on the matter, saying that the SC decision must be followed "otherwise, [there] will have a constitutional crisis, and our neighboring countries and other people might view us as a banana republic where we only follow what we want." Estrada echoed this, saying that the Senate is "going to flirt for a constitutional crisis" if the SC ruling is not followed. He also pointed out that the decision is immediately executory even though a motion for reconsideration (MR) may still be filed. "No more [trial] because ang sabi ng Supreme Court, ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction dahil unconstitutional ang finile ng House of Representatives. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because we don't have the jurisdiction," the Senate President Pro Tempore explained. (There's no more trial because based on the decision of the Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction because what the House of Representatives filed was unconstitutional. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because of that.) While he was open to hearing arguments on the matter, Estrada said his decision will not change. "Hindi because I will abide with the decision of the Supreme Court. Kahit na maganda ang kanilang dahilan, ultimately ang Supreme Court ang masusunod hindi naman sila. Unless 'pag na-file ang House ng MR at ma-reverse, we will abide with the ruling," he added. (No, because I will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even if others have good reasons not to do the same, the Supreme Court has the final say, not them. Unless the House files a motion for reconsideration and the decision is reversed, we will abide by the ruling.) The Senate is set to discuss the SC decision on August 6, 2025, according to Escudero. Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan earlier said he has been in talks with senators since Monday about signing a resolution he drafted with Senators Risa Hontiveros and Bam Aquino on how they can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial despite the SC decision. Hontiveros also said a total of four senators, including herself, have signed the resolution so far, with the hope that they will gain the support of others. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC decision, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
15 hours ago
- GMA Network
US judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
US President Donald Trump holds a "Foreign Trade Barriers" document as he delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/ Carlos Barria/ File photo US appeals court judges sharply questioned on Thursday whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The arguments—one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all US trading partners—mark the first test before a US appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority. — Reuters
GMA Network
18 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC decision on impeach rap makes accountability 'almost impossible' —Ex-SC Justice Azcuna
"The new rules of the Supreme Court in its add a plethora of effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure," said ex-SC Justice Adolf Azcuna. (File photo) The Supreme Court (SC) decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional makes the accountability procedure for public officials impossible to carry out, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said. "The new rules of the Supreme Court in its decision, unless reconsidered, would add a plethora of requirements ranging from prior notice and hearing, to attaching the evidence, to requiring proof that the Representatives read and understood the charges and the supporting evidence. All these will effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure," he said in a social media post. "Furthermore, if allowed to stand, it will to my mind effectively amend —and, God forbid, derail— the Constitution which even the Supreme Court has no power to do," added Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. On July 25, the high court released a decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Duterte unconstitutional. It ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The SC said the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint. Azcuna said, "the principal casualty" of the SC ruling "applying new rules on impeachment is the principle of accountability." "As most impartial observers agree, the Supreme Court's newly pronounced definition of 'initiate,' contrary to its own prevailing definition, would not only be unfair if applied retroactively, but would even as applied prospectively, unduly constrain the House of Representatives in the exercise of its exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,' Azcuna added, referring to Article 11, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution. According to the former magistrate, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have "constituent powers." He referred to this as the House's power to initiate all impeachment cases and the Senate's power to try and decide the same. "The cardinal rule in regard to constituent powers is that where the Constitution puts it, there it should be." "The Supreme Court cannot be to craft the rules to enforce Article XI of the Constitution. The reason for this is because the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one's own case," Azcuna said. Azcuna said the Vice President's right to due process was not violated by the House in filing the impeachment complaint because the official was not deprived of life, liberty or property as stated in the Bill of Rights. 'Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules in all phases of impeachment? None,' he said. 'Public office is a public trust. It is not a property owned by the occupant. The principles of due process therefore do not strictly apply to protect its occupants from scrutiny and possible removal,' he added. The House is set to appeal the SC ruling, arguing that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints is not considered as initiation as provided under two previous Supreme Court rulings in the Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. House cases. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
