On August 6, the Senate took a significant step in the ongoing political drama by choosing to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. This decision to archive the impeachment complaint came as senators voted 19-4-1, reflecting a careful constitutional balancing act amid legal uncertainties.
Archiving the impeachment complaint neither ended the case nor advanced it to trial. Instead, it paused Senate action while the Supreme Court examines an appeal filed by the House of Representatives. This move highlights the Senate’s respect for judicial processes while keeping the impeachment complaint alive.
Supreme Court’s Impact on the Impeachment Complaint
On July 25, the Supreme Court nullified the impeachment complaint, months after the House transmitted the articles to the Senate on February 5. The Court’s decision was immediately effective, ruling that the Senate had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the case. This legal development complicated the path forward for the impeachment process.
Despite the ruling, House leaders filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the Court to revisit its decision. Senators debated intensely whether to dismiss the complaint outright, as some Duterte allies suggested, or to keep it alive pending the Court’s possible reversal.
Senate’s Deliberate Pause: Archiving the Complaint
Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna outlined three options for the Senate before the vote: do nothing and await the Supreme Court’s reconsideration, proceed with the trial despite the Court’s ruling, or dismiss the articles entirely. Senators ultimately chose a fourth option—archiving the impeachment complaint.
Azcuna explained that archiving is not a dismissal but a temporary shelving of the case without prejudice. This approach allows the Senate to respect the Court’s decision while preserving the option to resume proceedings if the Supreme Court reverses its ruling.
Legal Perspectives on Archiving the Complaint
Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, affirmed the Senate’s authority to archive an impeachment complaint. He stated, “I think it’s a correct move on the part of the Senate.” He added that archiving avoids a constitutional crisis by neither dismissing the case nor defying the Court’s immediate executory ruling.
Constitutional law professor and lawyer Howard Calleja described archiving as setting aside the case pending the Supreme Court’s resolution. Although not ideal, he said, archiving is preferable to dismissal because it keeps the impeachment process alive and ready to restart if necessary.
Senate as Legislative Body vs. Impeachment Court
Calleja argued that the Senate should have convened as an impeachment court before deciding on archiving. He emphasized that once convened, all impeachment matters should be deliberated within the court setting, with all senator-judges sworn in to vote on motions or issues.
Azcuna noted that if the Supreme Court reverses its ruling, the Senate can resume proceedings without reconvening as an impeachment court. He explained that the Senate has control over its archives and can retrieve the materials anytime, underscoring the flexibility of the archiving process.
How the Impeachment Complaint Can Be Retrieved
Senator Sherwin Gatchalian reviewed Senate rules and explained two methods to retrieve the archived impeachment complaint. First, a motion by five senators can restore the articles if the Supreme Court reverses its decision. Second, a majority vote to suspend the rules can place the case back on the Senate’s agenda.
However, Gatchalian noted that a formal motion must be filed to initiate either process, ensuring that the matter is handled with procedural formality.
Implications of the Senate’s Move Forward
Azcuna likened archiving the impeachment complaint to “doing nothing” until the Supreme Court decides on the pending motion for reconsideration. He clarified that the Senate neither dismissed the case nor proceeded with the trial, but chose to wait for the Court’s final ruling.
While he acknowledged that a reversal of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision might be unlikely, Azcuna stressed the importance of allowing the Court to hear all criticisms and consider constitutional and factual arguments before issuing a final judgment.
Calleja described the Senate’s decision as “safe and prudent,” providing time for the Supreme Court to revisit its ruling. He emphasized that this move neither signifies defeat nor victory for any party but respects judicial authority while keeping the impeachment process open.
He further noted that archiving “keeps a small light on the horizon,” maintaining hope that the process may continue if the Court’s ruling changes. This middle ground avoids prematurely ending the impeachment and preserves the integrity of the constitutional process.
For more news and updates on impeachment complaint, visit Filipinokami.com.
