IN ASKING THE people to respect Friday’s decision of the Supreme Court nullifying the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Duterte, the SC should have first allowed an oral argument to take place and issued a status quo ante order, for the enlightenment of all parties, including the public.
Because of the order, too many discordant voices have been dominating the political landscape with many questioning the justices that voted 12 (out of 15) in favor of declaring the fourth impeachment case unconstitutional.
Some people have not only harshly criticized the former President Duterte-dominated court’s integrity, or lack of it, and some have even enunciated the need for a people power against the lack of transparency and accountability of public officials, including the SC.
‘A status quo ante order should have been considered by the 15-man High Tribunal instead of a “rushed decision” … In this way, both the justices and the public would have had a better grasp of the facts and the law involved.’
WELCOMING M.O.R.
Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban urged all parties to respect SC’s decision while stressing that the decision is not yet final as the respondents House and Senate are still allowed to file a motion for reconsideration of SC’s unanimous decision.
“First, regardless of whether we are for or against the decision, let us respect it. We must observe the rule of law,” Panganiban said.
STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER
Panganiban voiced his belief that a status quo ante order should have been considered by the 15-man High Tribunal instead of a “rushed decision.”
He said a SQAO would have barred the parties from conducting further proceedings on the fourth impeachment complaint pending the Court’s deliberation and resolution on the merits of the petitions assailing its constitutionality.
“In this way, both the justices and the public would have had a better grasp of the facts and the law involved. After all, this case has transcendental importance to the nation and to our people,” Panganiban said.
NO ORAL ARGUMENT?
Further, Panganiban suggested that an oral argument should have been conducted before any decision was issued on the issue. “If the Court had patiently heard oral argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case?”
“In the least, if only to accord respect to a coequal branch of the government, the HOR, I would have called for Oral Argument before making up my mind and casting my vote,” he added.
UNFAIR! – AZCUNA
Former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna asserted that while the SC decision may be legally correct, it is unfair for the respondents and movants of the impeachment.
“By declaring that the fourth Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House as violative of the one-year-bar rule under the Constitution, the Court came out with a new definition of what constitutes being “initiated,” Azcuna said.
In the Davide case, the SC defined initiating an Impeachment complaint as putting it in the order of business and referring it to a proper committee. But Azcuna said this was not followed with regard to the three impeachment complaints earlier filed before the House.
Azcuna added that SC’s recent ruling would now cover a situation where the complaints were not referred to a committee and, after the lapse of the time to do so, archived, and thus, the Supreme Court said, “effectively dismissed.”
“I respectfully submit that it would be unfair to apply this new definition to the complaint involved in the present case, as it was precisely adopted in reliance on the Supreme Court’s then prevailing definition.”
DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACTS
Azcuna suggested that the SC apply the Doctrine of Operative Facts in order for the impeachment trial to continue. Under the “doctrine of operative fact,” acts done in good faith prior to the determination of their unconstitutionality produce consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored, or disregarded.
“I respectfully appeal that the High Court, by way of a Supplemental Resolution, apply to this case the Doctrine of Operative Facts, which it has applied before in similar cases, stating that where actions were taken and things done in reliance on its former and then prevailing definition [or in the absence of one], the action and things done will be treated as valid, and the new definition will be applied prospectively, i.e., to future cases,” Azcuna posted in his Facebook account.
“In this way, I respectfully submit, the people’s unwavering demand for accountability now will be served, and the trial in the Senate can still, and finally, proceed forthwith,” he added.
THE 97-PAGE DECISION
The 97-page decision issued on Friday and penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, declared as unconstitutional the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte for violating her right to due process and Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the Constitution which prohibits the filing an impeachment complaint against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
The SC said the three impeachment complaints were archived, thus, deemed dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House filed the fourth impeachment complaint.
Thus, the SC held that no new impeachment complaint should be initiated earlier than February 6, 2026.
REVERSE RULING, HOUSE ASKS
The HoR will seek a reversal of SC’s decision nullifying the impeachment complaint against VP Sara, asserting that the ruling rests on misleading and factually incorrect premises.
House spokesman Princess Abante said while the chamber respects the SC, it is “deeply troubled” by the decision that invalidated the impeachment complaint filed on February 5, 2025.
“First and foremost, the House maintains its respect for our Supreme Court. However, we are deeply concerned upon receiving and reviewing the Court’s ruling, which voided the impeachment complaint against VP Duterte,” Abante said.
“After careful study, the House will file a Motion for Reconsideration. The ruling—which claims that the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate were unconstitutional—is based on incorrect and contradictory factual findings,” and that the Court may have unintentionally rewritten the rules on impeachment.
CATEGORICALLY FALSE
Abante underscored that the Court’s claim—that the Articles of Impeachment were sent to the Senate without plenary approval—is “categorically false.”
“On February 5, 2025, Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe moved to transmit the complaint to the Senate, based on the fact that it was verified and signed by at least one-third of all House members. This motion was approved in plenary, and the House subsequently formed a panel of public prosecutors. The transmittal was not unilateral nor ministerial—it was a result of plenary action,” she explained.
This plenary action is clearly reflected in House Journal 36 and in the official Record of the House of Representatives, she said.
THREE OTHER PLAINTS
The SC also noted that the House failed to act on three earlier complaints filed in December 2024, which Abante refuted, saying the chamber had, in fact, archived those complaints just hours before the session adjourned.
“On the same day the February complaint was acted upon, the House also voted in plenary to archive the three December complaints. This was done a few hours before adjournment, after confirming that the February complaint had been properly verified and signed by one-third of the members,” she said.
“Under the Constitution, that alone constitutes the Articles of Impeachment and mandates their transmission to the Senate,” she added.
CENTRAL PREMISE
She said the SC’s conclusion that the February complaint violated the one-year bar rule, is a “factual and procedural inversion.”
“The ruling’s central premise—the foundation on which all legal conclusions were made—is erroneous. It disregarded the plenary vote, misread the timeline of House actions, and relied more on a news article than on the House Journal and official reports submitted to the Court,” Abante said.
“What’s more troubling is that the decision failed to even mention, much less address, these official documents,” she added.
She also challenged the Court’s interpretation of due process, saying it imposed new requirements not found in either the Constitution or the House rules.
“The Court now claims that even if a complaint is signed and verified by one-third of the members, it must still be individually read by each signatory and voted on again in plenary. It also claims the respondent must be given the chance to respond before the complaint reaches the Senate. But no such requirement exists in the Constitution or in our House rules,” she said.
“In effect, the Court created new standards that were never part of our existing laws. They nullified the Articles of Impeachment based on these new due process rules,” she added.
IN GOOD FAITH
Abante invoked the doctrine of operative facts, pointing out that the House acted in good faith based on the Supreme Court’s own previous rulings in Francisco and Gutierrez.
She said that VP Duterte was invited multiple times to committee hearings to present her side but declined to appear. “If due process and the right to be heard are truly at issue, let it be noted that VP Sara Duterte was repeatedly invited to speak at the hearings but chose to remain silent,” she said.
She warned that the ruling not only complicates impeachment proceedings but also infringes on the House’s exclusive constitutional powers.
LEGAL MANEUVER
The Makabayan bloc has denounced the SC’s decision halting the impeachment trial calling it a legal maneuver that enables impunity rather than upholding justice.
“We express deep disappointment and outrage over this ruling. Once again, holding the powerful to account proves to be an uphill battle in our country,” the bloc said.
The group accused Malacañang and the Senate of having actively blocked the impeachment process since February, now culminating in a decision that strips the Senate of jurisdiction and buries the trial.
The group noted that the Court’s ruling was based on a questionable interpretation of the one-year ban on multiple impeachment complaints and alleged due process violations—despite clear constitutional provisions.
“Section 3 [4], Article XI of the Constitution clearly states: ‘An impeachment complaint filed by one-third of the members of the House shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.’ That mandate is not optional. It is mandatory,” the bloc said.
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Former PCGG lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr. accused the SC of giving VP Duterte preferential treatment after her petition to block her impeachment trial was resolved ahead of another filed days earlier, Rappler reported.
Generillo Jr. said the High Court violated both the 1987 Constitution and its own internal rules when it granted Duterte’s petition to block the trial — which she filed on February 18 — ahead of his February 14 petition asking the SC to direct the Senate to “immediately” start Duterte’s trial.
Generillo said the SC should have decided weeks ago on May 20 after the Senate filed its comment on May 19 through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Meanwhile, Duterte’s petition only became ripe for a decision on July 17 after the House of Representatives submitted its Compliance with the Supreme Court.
“[The] SC therefore has the constitutional duty to render its decision on my petition first. The same duty is imposed by the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court,” the former special counsel for the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) said on Saturday, July 26, Rappler added.
Generillo also said the justices gave “special treatment to the Duterte petition,” and therefore violated the Constitution.
Generillo pointed out that the Senate was ready to proceed with the impeachment trial once session resumes and after the Articles of Impeachment were read on June 2.
The impeachment court would have convened on June 3 and have the senator-judges take their oath. The actual trial would have started on July 30.
The OSG asked the SC to junk Generillo’s petition asking the Senate to convene for the trial as “there is [nothing] left for the Honorable Court to compel the Senate to do.”
#SCruling
#impeachmenttrialstopped
#HoRtofileforreconsideration
#SCCJPanganiban
#SCAJAzcuna
#unconstitutional
#unfair
#statusquoanteorder
#VPSaraDuterte
#ThePhInsider