logo
House used ‘highly immoral maneuver' in VP Sara impeachment

House used ‘highly immoral maneuver' in VP Sara impeachment

GMA Network2 days ago
Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando said the House of Representatives took ''deliberate'' actions to circumvent the one-year bar rule in relation to the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Hernando was one of the 13 justices who voted on Friday to strike down the impeachment complaint pending before the Senate, ruling that it violated the constitutional protection against multiple impeachment proceedings against the same official in a single year.
According to the SC, the effective termination of the three impeachment complaints following the adjournment of session barred the fourth impeachment complaint, which was endorsed by more than 200 congressmen on February 5.
''[T]he House abused its discretion when it tolerated and approved the Secretary General's act of withholding action on the first three impeachment complaints,'' Hernando said in his concurring opinion.
''The totality of attendant circumstances reveals the true nature of the House's action: to circumvent the one-year bar rule in order to fabricate a superficially legal strategy and make the fourth complaint viable. The move was as clever as it was iniquitous and a prime example of a technically legal but highly immoral maneuver—a mere subterfuge for political gain, for it exploited a weak point in our democratic institutions,'' he added.
He said the House Secretary General's argument that the one-year bar rule did not apply since the first three complaints were never referred to the House Committee on Justice was ''an excuse so lame and convenient that it is extremely difficult to ignore the impunity that comes with it.''
However, ''one may take the unpopular perspective that the House of Representatives' seeming inaction on the first three impeachment complaints served as a mantle of protection to VP Duterte and saved her from the burden of having to answer all allegations against her all at once,'' said Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda.
Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, for his part, said that Duterte was not given due process in the course of the impeachment proceedings in the House.
''Here, as admitted by the House in their compliance before the Court, VP Sara was not given the opportunity to be heard in relation to the fourth Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate. The House posits that neither the Constitution nor the House Rules imposes any requirement of prior opportunity to be heard,'' Gaerlan said in his concurring opinion.
''[T]he fundamental right to due process applies in all proceedings. Impeachment is not an exception,'' he added.
''[D]ue to the House's violation of VP Sara's right to due process, the fourth Articles of Impeachment is null and void.''
Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez said that while the Constitution allows the direct filing of an impeachment complaint upon the endorsement of at least one-third of all House members, ''this expedited process must not come at the expense of the respondent public official's constitutional rights.''
Both Hernando and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting opined that the Senate of the 20th Congress, which opens on July 28, could no longer act on the impeachment complaint.
Inting said the Articles of Impeachment that were transmitted by the 19th Congress were 'terminated and rendered inefficacious with the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress on June 30, 2025.''
''I]f the Senate of the 20th Congress is allowed to continue with the trial on the subject impeachment complaint, it would have to proceed based on the Articles of Impeachment by the House that no longer exists,'' he said. ''Such a situation is tantamount to the creation of an irrepealable statute, which is constitutionally impermissible.''
Hernando said the newly elected Congress could not be bound by the actions of the previous Congress.
''The fourth impeachment complaint already transmitted and pending before the Senate of the 19th Congress, as the Senate had already convened as an impeachment court, is likewise terminated by reason of the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress,'' he said.
Duterte was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.
The charges included allegations of misusing confidential funds and threatening to have Speaker Martin Romualdez, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. assassinated if she was killed.
The Vice President has denied the allegations.
The SC said that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges, and an impeachment complaint can still be filed starting February 6, 2026. —VBL, GMA Integrated News
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

OCTA poll: 80% of Filipinos want VP Sara to face impeachment trial
OCTA poll: 80% of Filipinos want VP Sara to face impeachment trial

GMA Network

time2 hours ago

  • GMA Network

OCTA poll: 80% of Filipinos want VP Sara to face impeachment trial

Majority of Filipinos believe that Vice President Sara Duterte should face an impeachment trial to answer the charges against her, results of a survey conducted by OCTA Research showed. The July 2025 Tugon ng Masa (TNM) Survey, released on Sunday, showed that 80% of respondents answered in the affirmative when asked if they thought Duterte should face trial. There were 14% who disagreed, while the remaining 7% were undecided or refused to answer. Majority support for the trial was seen across all regions: 87% in the National Capital Region, 77% in balance Luzon, 92% in the Visayas, and 69% in Mindanao. This was also the case across socio-economic classes: 80% for Classes A, B, C, and D, and 78% for Class E. For those who agreed that Duterte should face the impeachment trial, the most commonly cited reason, with 59% of respondents, was that she should address the charges, clear her name, and prove herself worthy of her position. Other reasons include a belief in the charges with 21%, and the view that facing trial is necessary for her to remain eligible to run in the 2028 elections with 16%. Among those who opposed a trial, 44% said the issue is a political conflict between the camps of Duterte and President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr., whom she ran alongside with in the 2022 national elections. Other cited a belief in her integrity and disbelief in the allegations with 33%, while 19% said she should focus instead on serving the nation. The survey fieldwork was conducted using face-to-face interviews from July 12 to July 17, 2025, a week before the Supreme Court released its decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional. SC spokesperson Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC 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 survey polled 1,200 male and female respondents aged 18 and above. It has a margin of error of ±3 % at a 95% confidence level. Subnational estimates carry a ±6% margin of error for Metro Manila, Balance Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Out of the respondents, 97% said they have heard, read, or watched anything about the impeachment complaint, while 2% said they were unaware. The recent SC decision is in relation to the petition filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon, among others, seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her null and void Lawyer and Constitutional law expert Domingo 'Egon' Cayosa on Saturday said the Senate may still opt to proceed with the trial, as it may assert its 'exclusive power' with regard to impeachment matters. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — BM, GMA Integrated News

House to appeal SC ruling voiding Sara Duterte Articles of Impeachment
House to appeal SC ruling voiding Sara Duterte Articles of Impeachment

GMA Network

time5 hours ago

  • GMA Network

House to appeal SC ruling voiding Sara Duterte Articles of Impeachment

The House of Representatives is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to void the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. In a video message released on Sunday, House of Representatives spokesperson Atty. Priscilla Marie 'Princess' Abante said the House has studied the SC decision, and found that the bases for it were alarming. 'Ang Kamara, matapos ang masusing pag-aaral, ay maghahain ng motion for reconsideration dahil ang desisyon na nagsasabing ang Articles of Impeachment na ipinadala sa Senado ay barred or unconstitutional ay nakaangkla sa mga factual premises o findings na mali at salungat sa opisyal na record ng Kamara,' she said. (The House, after thorough study, will file a motion for reconsideration because the decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate are barred or unconstitutional is based on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official records of the House.) This comes as the SC ruled unanimously to declare that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional and imposing a one-year ban, as it said these violate the right to due process. SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. According to Abante, the decision claimed that articles were transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote, which she said was 'categorically false' and wrong, as she said the plenary voted on February 5, 2025, with at least a third of the House members, as detailed in House Journal 36. Abante also said the High Court wrongly claimed that the House did not act on the first three impeachment complaints, as she said these were acted on and were archived on the same day, prior to the chamber adjourning session. 'Ang pinakabatayang saligan ng desisyon kung saan umikot ang mga legal pronouncement ng Korte ay mali. Hindi isinama ang plenary vote, mali ang pagbasa sa timeline ng mga kilos ng Kamara, at mas pinaniwalaan ang isang news article kaysa sa House Journal at opisyal na record na isinumite mismo sa Korte,' she said. (The fundamental basis of the decision, on which the Court's legal pronouncements were anchored, is flawed. The plenary vote was excluded, the timeline of the House's actions was misread, and a news article was given more weight than the House Journal and official records that were submitted to the Court itself.) Abante likewise said the SC gave new rules that are not in the Constitution nor in the governing rules of the House of Representatives citing due process, even if the chamber followed previous rulings of the High Court. 'It should also be said, kung due process at opportunity to be heard ang usapan, ilang beses nang naimbitahan si Vice President Sara Duterte sa mga pagdinig ng Committee upang siya ay mabigyan ng pagkakataong ipaliwanag ang kaniyang panig, ngunit nananatili siyang tikom ang kaniyang bibig,' Abante said. (It should also be said that when it comes to due process and the opportunity to be heard, Vice President Sara Duterte was invited multiple times to the Committee hearings to give her a chance to explain her side, but she has consistently remained silent.) 'It is for these reasons the House will be filing a motion for reconsideration. We remain hopeful that once facts are corrected, the Court will arrive at a different and more just conclusion,' she added. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — RF, GMA Integrated News

Senate impeachment court to vote on whether to proceed with VP Sara trial
Senate impeachment court to vote on whether to proceed with VP Sara trial

GMA Network

time5 hours ago

  • GMA Network

Senate impeachment court to vote on whether to proceed with VP Sara trial

The Senate impeachment court is set to vote whether to proceed with the deliberations after receiving the Supreme Court's ruling on the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, its spokesperson said Sunday. According to Senate Impeachment Court spokesperson Regie Tongol, the body received the email transmittal of the SC decision on Friday evening, July 25, 2025, and will vote on it moving forward. 'Yes, as part of the usual deliberative process of any collegial body based on Senate rules,' he said in a Viber message to reporters over the weekend. This comes as the SC ruled unanimously to declare that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional and violate the right to due process. SC spokesperson Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC 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 decision is in relation to the petition filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon, among others, seeking to declare the Artiles of Impeachment against her null and void Following the announcement of the decision, Tongol said the Senate Impeachment Court is 'duty-bound' to respect the finality of rulings issued by High Court. 'The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court,' he said then. Senators have since aired contrasting opinions on the decision, with some saying the Senate can still choose to proceed with the trial. Lawyer and Constitutional law expert Domingo 'Egon' Cayosa on Saturday said the Senate may still opt to proceed with the trial, as it may assert its 'exclusive power' with regard to impeachment matters. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — BM, GMA Integrated News

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store