Sotto Questions Supreme Court’s Impeachment Proceedings Ruling
MANILA, Philippines — Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III has voiced strong doubts about the Supreme Court’s decision on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. The key issue revolves around whether the Court acted on a flawed premise in declaring the impeachment process unconstitutional.
Sotto, a former Senate president, is among several officials questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s July 25 ruling authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. The decision invalidated the third mode of initiating impeachment complaints—the one directly filed by the House of Representatives.
Leonen’s Understanding of Congressional Rules Under Fire
During a July 31 interview on the Facts First podcast and later in a formal Senate session, Sotto criticized the Court’s interpretation of congressional rules. He particularly contested the claim that the first three impeachment complaints filed in December 2024 were “archived” due to the “adjournment of the 19th Congress” on February 5, 2025.
“Meron akong hindi nagustuhan doon sa decision na sinasabi ni Justice Leonen,” Sotto said. “Particularly, sinabi niya na the three complaints were archived because of the adjournment of the 19th Congress. Mukhang unfamiliar si Justice Leonen sa rules ng Kongreso, which is found in the Constitution. Gusto ba niya amyendahin din ito?”
He clarified that February 5 was merely a legislative recess, not the official sine die adjournment that ends a Congress. According to Sotto, the 19th Congress only officially adjourned on June 13, 2025.
“If there’s no adjournment sine die of the 19th Congress… wala naman na-archive. Doon sa House, walang naa-archive,” he pointed out. “Kung may naa-archive ‘yan, isipin mo pag nag-break kami ng September, archive na lahat na naka-pending. Ibig sabihin niyan pagdating ng December break, archive na lahat. Mag-re-refile ka na naman?”
He stressed that any complaint filed and discussed remains active until the sine die adjournment, which marks the formal end of Congress.
Flawed Premise Leads to Flawed Ruling, Sotto Says
During Senate debates on August 6 about the impeachment complaint, Sotto reiterated his view that the Supreme Court’s ruling rested on an incorrect understanding. The Court repeatedly cited the February 5 adjournment as the reason for archiving the complaints, but Sotto argued this was mistaken.
“In both instances, the Supreme Court was referring to the February 5, 2025 adjournment, but they have… erroneously believed that the said adjournment is the same adjournment with the sine die adjournment that ends a Congress—it is not,” he said.
He emphasized the difference between an ordinary adjournment and adjournment sine die, noting, “Nothing dies — the treaties, bills, resolutions, and anything filed continue. It is never archived.”
Sotto also highlighted that the House only archived the three complaints on February 6, not February 5, and that the archiving was due to a fourth complaint already being filed and sent to the Senate.
“Eh dito pa lang, pilit na pilit na pinapatunayan na barred ang fourth complaint. Kapag ayaw may dahilan, kapag gusto may paraan,” he added.
Decision Lacks Transparency, Sotto Criticizes
Sotto lamented the Supreme Court’s process, pointing out the absence of oral arguments or consultations with lawmakers or legal experts familiar with congressional rules.
“This is a transcendental case, ang laking constitutional issue. Wala man lang oral arguments, or at the very least, a consultation with some members of Congress or members of the Bar na nakakaintindi ng rules of Congress regarding the procedure,” he said.
He questioned whether Justice Leonen and the Court intended to rewrite congressional rules. “Gusto nila palitan [ang rules natin]? Ganoon ba ‘yun?”
Moreover, Sotto and several lawyers found the 97-page ruling confusing and incoherent. He noted, “Para bang pinag-tagpi-tagpi.”
Potential Consequences of the Ruling
Sotto warned that upholding the ruling could undermine not only the current impeachment process but also past impeachments like those of President Joseph Estrada and Chief Justice Renato Corona.
He also disputed the Court’s assertion that the Senate had not convened as an impeachment court, citing the June 10 convening and subsequent remanding of the case to the House.
“The Supreme Court essentially amended the Constitution by removing the third mode of filing… This third—and speedy—mode was enshrined for a reason,” Sotto said.
He urged the Senate not to dismiss the impeachment outright and to await the Supreme Court’s decision on the pending motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court’s Ruling Remains Unsettled
The Supreme Court’s July 25 ruling invalidating the fourth complaint and dismissing earlier ones has yet to become final. The House, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to reverse its decision.
Sotto called on the Court to revisit the ruling, describing it as full of “clear and blatant errors.” He recalled Justice Leonen’s own admission: “The Supreme Court is not perfect.”
“Even the Supreme Court can commit grave abuse of discretion or a culpable violation of the Constitution,” Sotto said. “For all we know, it is a unanimous mistake.”
For more news and updates on impeachment proceedings, visit Filipinokami.com.
