THE Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered Vice President Sara Duterte to comment on a motion filed by the House of Representatives seeking to overturn its July 25 ruling that voided the fourth impeachment complaint against her.
In a resolution, the Court also acknowledged a separate motion for reconsideration from Akbayan party-list Rep. Percival Cendaña and other petitioners, which remains pending alongside their bid to intervene in the case. The deadline set for Duterte and her lawyer Israelito Torreon to respond is Aug. 15.
The vice president will comply with the Supreme Court’s order within the period specified, her spokesman Michael Wesley Poa said in a text message to The Manila Times.
Vice President Sara Duterte. PHOTOS BY JOHN ORVEN VERDOTE
Filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the House’s motion argues that the SC erred in interpreting Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution, which bars multiple impeachment attempts against the same official within a year.
The House contends the Feb. 5, 2025, complaint—signed by 215 members and automatically becoming the articles of impeachment—did not violate the rule because three earlier complaints, lodged in December 2024, had not been “formally initiated” when the fourth was transmitted to the Senate.
The motion further asserts that impeachment is a political process where due process applies at the Senate trial stage, not during House proceedings, and accuses the SC of imposing new procedural requirements retroactively. Citing past rulings, the House warned that the decision intrudes into Congress’ exclusive power to initiate impeachment.
In a 13-0-2 vote last month, the Court struck down the fourth impeachment complaint, ruling that archiving the first three filings effectively initiated impeachment proceedings, triggering the one-year ban. Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa and Maria Filomena D. Singh abstained.
The decision, declared “immediately final and executory,” froze the Senate trial indefinitely.
The Court’s order triggered a surge of legal challenges from multiple fronts. Retired justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, through the 1Sambayan coalition, filed their own omnibus motion on Tuesday urging the Court to revive the case, warning that the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent” by allowing officials to evade accountability on technical grounds.
A separate appeal from the Taong Bayan Ayaw sa Magnanakaw at Abusado (TAMA NA) alliance, led by former youth representative Mong Palatino, pressed for public oral arguments so ordinary citizens can hear the constitutional debate.
“This is not just a legal issue. This is about public accountability… It can’t be just the lawyers and congressmen making the decisions,” Palatino said.
The Philippine Bar Association (PBA), the country’s largest private lawyers’ group, also voiced alarm, saying the decision “triggers a serious disruption of constitutional accountability” and reverses long-standing jurisprudence. It warned that applying new constitutional interpretations retroactively risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary.
Not all reactions have been critical.
Washington DC-based international law and human rights expert Arnedo Valera defended the Supreme Court’s authority as final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. In an interview, Valera said that public debate must respect institutional supremacy—even in disagreement.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliberate on the pending motions in the coming weeks.
Legal analysts note that if the Court denies reconsideration, the House will be barred from filing a new impeachment complaint against Duterte until February 2026—a scenario that could ease political pressure on the vice president but deepen debates over the balance of power between Congress and the judiciary.
WITH RED MENDOZA
