Complainants Appeal for Reversal of Duterte Impeachment Ruling
Complainants in the third impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its July 25 decision that declared the fourth impeachment case unconstitutional. They emphasized the importance of the best interest of judicial and public order in their appeal, urging the Court to allow the impeachment trial to proceed immediately.
“In the best interest of judicial and public order, this Honorable Court must reverse its decision and allow the impeachment trial to proceed forthwith. The Filipino nation—with all its strength and frailties—deserve nothing less,” the motion for reconsideration-in-intervention stated, underscoring the urgency of the matter.
Concerns Over Judicial Accountability and Public Trust
While the complainants agree with the Supreme Court that impeachment should not be used as a tool for retribution, they cautioned that the Court risks eroding public trust in constitutional accountability if it exceeds its jurisdiction, especially since it is composed of impeachable officers. This delicate balance between judicial authority and public confidence was highlighted as a key point in their plea.
Connection Between Impeachment Complaints
The petitioner-intervenors, though not direct parties to the Supreme Court case, explained that the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte is rooted in the foundation of the first three complaints. These initial complaints were archived by the House of Representatives but considered dismissed by the Court in its ruling.
“Thus, any ruling pertaining to the impeachment process of the vice president also affects the cause of the movant-intervenors as complainants of the third impeachment complaint,” community members noted, stressing the interconnectedness of the cases.
Movant-Intervenors Behind the Third Impeachment Complaint
Among those filing the third impeachment complaint and now acting as movant-intervenors before the Supreme Court are Rev. Fathers Antonio Labiao Jr., Joel Saballa, and Ruben Villanuena. They are supported by representatives from organizations such as Stand Up for Good (Sugod), Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), and Samahan ng mga Detainees Laban sa Detention at Para sa Amnesty (Selda).
Arguments Against Dismissal of Previous Complaints
The movant-intervenors reiterated earlier arguments claiming that the House of Representatives did not violate the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, which prohibits filing impeachment complaints against the same official more than once within a year. They argued that the first three complaints cannot be considered dismissed merely due to the House’s inaction.
They maintained that the 19th Congress still has the opportunity to refer the initial complaints to the Committee on Justice before June 30, 2025. “The House could not be guilty of inaction between the filing of the first three impeachment complaints and their inclusion in the Order of Business. The House did not violate the 10-session-day requirement. It only maximized the use of the constitutional period,” officials reported.
Due Process and Impeachment Proceedings
The movant-intervenors also stressed that the impeachment process is not a criminal trial and therefore does not require the application of the due process clause. They emphasized the significant responsibilities of impeachable officers, including the Vice President, who handle critical duties and manage substantial public funds.
“The fact that impeachable officers, including the Vice President, carry some of the most critical and important duties and responsibilities, occupy offices with the highest budget allocation, and are among those with the heftiest public remuneration, must be front and center in any discussion of impeachment and accountability,” they said.
They further urged the Court to prioritize the public’s interest in holding officials accountable over the officials’ desire to protect their reputations. “Hence, the Honorable Court is respectfully and vehemently urged to give greater weight to the public wanting to hold their public officers accountable than to public officers wanting to protect their reputation,” community leaders added.
Pending Motions for Reconsideration
Currently, there are four pending motions for reconsideration before the Supreme Court, mostly filed by complainants involved in the impeachment case before the House of Representatives. The House itself has also filed a motion for reconsideration through the Office of the Solicitor General.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has directed Vice President Duterte’s camp to submit their comments on the appeal filed by Congress, indicating that the case remains active and under careful scrutiny.
For more news and updates on impeachment proceedings, visit Filipinokami.com.
