Palace Responds to Supreme Court’s Impeachment Trial Block
MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang respects the Supreme Court’s ruling but does not fully agree with the decision blocking the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The Court deemed the trial unconstitutional, sparking sharp reactions from government officials.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. emphasized that the impeachment trial is a matter for the legislative branch, not the executive. He prefers to stay out of the discussion, wary that further comments might be seen as political maneuvering. “The impeachment trial is a mandate of the legislative branch,” he said, deferring the issue to Congress.
Palace press officer Undersecretary Claire Castro reiterated that Malacañang respects the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of the law. Yet, she noted, “It’s one thing to respect the decision of the Supreme Court. And it’s another thing whether you believe the Supreme Court’s decision is right.” In an interview over dzMM, she remarked that past rulings appeared overlooked in this case but acknowledged that the Court’s word is final.
Castro also clarified that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not clear the Vice President of any alleged offenses mentioned in the impeachment articles. She said, “The SC decision favored her by mere technicality.”
One-Year Ban on Impeachment Complaints
The Supreme Court’s 97-page verdict addressed two petitions challenging the impeachment’s constitutionality. It struck down the complaint endorsed by over a third of House lawmakers, citing violation of the one-year ban on filing impeachment complaints against a public official.
The Court criticized the House for failing to deliver the impeachment articles to Duterte or giving her a chance to respond before forwarding the case to the Senate.
Supporting this view, Castro referenced former Supreme Court justices’ analyses, questioning how the current Court arrived at its decision to void the impeachment case. She quoted retired SC Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who labeled the ruling “legally correct,” but “rather unfair.” Azcuna noted the Court introduced a new interpretation of what it means to initiate an impeachment complaint, abandoning the 2003 Francisco v. House of Representatives precedent.
Castro described this shift as unjust, saying, “It’s like punishing someone by forcing them to accept something new, when what they previously accepted was based on the prevailing jurisprudence at that time.” She added, “Then suddenly, you’re going to impose your newly created rule on them—something that didn’t even exist back then. That’s unfair.”
President’s Stance and Legislative Responsibility
While Castro expressed Malacañang’s respect for the judicial process, she made clear that President Marcos defers entirely to Congress on the impeachment matter. “The President should not meddle with the impeachment process because he is also an impeachable officer,” she explained. She warned that any perceived interference from the President might worsen the situation and appear as politicking, despite his intention to focus on governance.
She urged the House and Senate to fulfill their duties. “If someone should be held accountable [through impeachment], then they should be held accountable,” Castro said.
Meanwhile, President Marcos is concentrating on completing his fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA). He is scheduled to deliver it on Monday at the Batasang Pambansa Complex as the 20th Congress opens its first regular session.
For more news and updates on impeachment trial, visit Filipinokami.com.
