(UPDATE) A DAY after the Senate archived the articles of impeachment against her following an order from the Supreme Court, Vice President Sara Duterte called on the public to respect the Senate’s decision.
In a marathon session on Wednesday, the Senate voted 19 yes and four no, with one abstention, to archive the articles of impeachment in abeyance to the high court’s ruling that Duterte’s impeachment was unconstitutional, since it was the fourth complaint that was filed in a single year, and was deemed void from the start.
The Senate decision to archive the impeachment articles has touched off intense debate.
ALL SMILES Vice President Sara Duterte meets with lawyer Israelito Torreon, one of the petitioners of her impeachment case at the Supreme Court, during a get together in Davao City. PHOTO FROM DAVAO COUNCILOR LUNA ACOSTA
During an interview after a thanksgiving Mass for the Kadayawan Festival in Davao City on Thursday, Duterte said the people “need to respect the role of the Senate of the Philippines in our country, so if that was the decision of most of the members of the Senate, we need to follow and respect it,” Duterte said.
She said that her lawyers had studied all possible scenarios even before the trial, including the archiving of the impeachment articles.
Duterte said she expects impeachment cases to be filed against her in 2026 to 2028, and that she is ready to answer them.
She also said that her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, detained at The Hague awaiting charges for crimes against humanity, was glad when he heard about the favorable ruling.
She said her office will continue to work even if she expects its budget to be cut.
Duterte also hit out at Malacañang spokesman Claire Castro for saying that she went to Kuwait without a travel authority, calling it another case of political gaslighting.
“The Office of the President and the PCO (Presidential Communications Office), they always tell us that we should not spread disinformation and fake news, and it is not true that I went to Kuwait without a travel authority,” Duterte said.
Reacting to the shelving of the impeachment complaint against Duterte, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Friday said it has no bearing on the merits of the case since it addressed only procedural issues.
“Let me clarify. The merits of the case were not examined by the Supreme Court. This does not mean, this does not decide the merits of the case. It just talked about procedure,” Marcos told members of the Philippine media who were covering his visit to Bengaluru, India.
“So the procedure was faulty, was lacking. That is the assessment ng Supreme Court. It has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the impeachment,” the President said.
Because there has been no trial, “the merits of the case have not been examined, tried, adjudicated, argued, discussed. So, accountability just doesn’t come into it. People have to understand, it is a procedural question,” he said.
“They said the date was wrong, the way the House did it was not correct. It had nothing to do with the contents of the impeachment complaint, but with how the impeachment was handled,” Marcos said.
The President maintained that the executive branch has no role in impeachment proceedings.
“The president has no role. I’m an impeachable officer. I cannot involve myself in any of this. So, it’s really the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House,” he said.
For House Public Accounts Committee chairman Terry Ridon is concerned, the Duterte impeachment case is not about political affiliations or personalities, but the rule of law.
“This is about accountability on the use of confidential funds, the accountability in the threats against the President, the first lady and the House Speaker,” Ridon said in a press briefing on Friday.
He said the House is open to refiling the impeachment complaint in February 2026 if the Supreme Court decides the impeachment case with finality.
Also on Friday, members of the Makabayan bloc in the House, including party-list representatives and mass leaders, filed a joint motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse its decision last July 25 that declared the impeachment proceedings against the vice president unconstitutional.
The filers of the second impeachment complaint against the Vice president — current ACT Teachers Party-List Rep. Antonio Tinio and Kabataan Party-List Rep. Renee Co — along with Makabayan President Liza Maza, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) Chairman Teodoro Casiño, Bayan President Renato Reyes, Piston President Modesto Floranda and Sandugo convenor Amirah Lidasan, also filed a motion to intervene.
They were joined by former ACT Teachers party-list representative France Castro, former Gabriela representative Arlene Brosas and former Kabataan representative Raoul Manuel as intervenors, having endorsed the second impeachment complaint.
The National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) represented the group as their counsel.
“The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended impeachment to be a politically accessible tool of accountability, not a constitutional remedy encumbered by procedural obstacles. The Supreme Court’s ruling narrows the very pathway that the Constitution deliberately kept open,” NUPL Secretary-General Josalee Deinla said in a statement on Friday.
“The Constitution makes clear: if one-third of all House members sign a verified impeachment complaint, it constitutes the Articles of Impeachment and trial must forthwith proceed at the Senate. With all due respect, the Supreme Court’s additional requirements have no basis in the text and undermine the separation of powers,” she said.
“The intervenors are gravely concerned that, if left standing, the decision could render impeachment as an ‘exceptional power of oversight’ powerless and out of reach. They urge the Supreme Court to apply the Constitution as it is written, without overriding the meaning it gives itself. In a democracy, the path to accountability must remain open,” Deinla said.
She said the intervenors raised the following arguments in the joint motion:
– There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives.
– The impeachment articles were not barred by the one-year ban.
– There is no precedence between the two modes of initiating impeachment.
– Due process guarantees do not apply at the initiation stage of an impeachment.
