MANILA, Philippines — Opposition coalition 1Sambayan has urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling that halted the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. They insist the House of Representatives had indeed given plenary approval to the impeachment complaint before forwarding it to the Senate, challenging the Court’s recent decision.
In an omnibus motion for reconsideration filed on August 5, 1Sambayan—represented by retired Supreme Court justices and legal experts—requested the high court to review, revise, or set aside its July 25 ruling. Their motion also called for a status quo ante order and oral arguments to address the matter thoroughly.
Supreme Court’s Impeachment Trial Ruling Challenged
On July 25, the Supreme Court declared three impeachment complaints against Duterte in late 2024 effectively dismissed and labeled the fourth complaint filed on February 5, 2025, as a separate initiation. The Court held that this violated the one-year bar under the Constitution, rendering the Articles of Impeachment “null and void ab initio.” It further stated the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convene as an impeachment court.
However, 1Sambayan countered, arguing the Court was mistaken in concluding that the House never granted plenary approval to the fourth complaint.
Plenary Approval of the Fourth Complaint
The coalition emphasized that the Supreme Court erred in its assessment, citing the official record from the House’s 36th Session Day on February 5, 2025. They quoted Representative Dalipe: “Considering that the Secretary General had certified that at least 215 Members of the House of Representatives had verified and swore before him the said impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte and consistent with our rules, I move that the Secretary General be directed to immediately endorse the same to the Senate.”
The Speaker then declared: “There is a motion to direct the Secretary General to immediately endorse to the Senate the impeachment complaint having been filed by more than one-third of the membership of the House or a total of 215 Members. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General is so directed.”
1Sambayan stressed this vote met the constitutional requirement, meaning the fourth complaint had plenary approval contrary to the Court’s findings. They argued this official legislative act should have been judicially noticed without requiring further evidence.
The group also criticized the Court’s reliance on media reports as improper, citing previous rulings that courts should not act on unverified information. Furthermore, they noted even the original petitioners acknowledged the plenary vote, weakening the Court’s basis for dismissal.
New Impeachment Requirements Opposed
1Sambayan challenged the Supreme Court’s imposition of new due process steps for impeachment. They referenced the 1986 Constitutional Commission’s intent to balance ease and difficulty in initiating impeachment by setting the voting threshold at one-third of House members.
One commissioner explained this was a compromise to avoid making impeachment too easy or too hard to initiate. They also recalled efforts to liberalize impeachment procedures to prevent deadlocks and encourage accountability.
The coalition claimed the Court’s new procedural demands conflict with the framers’ original intent and risk weakening the impeachment process as a tool for upholding public accountability.
Judicial Overreach on Congress’ Powers
Emphasizing that the Constitution grants the House exclusive power to initiate impeachment, 1Sambayan argued the Supreme Court overstepped by requiring the House to provide the respondent with draft Articles of Impeachment and evidence before transmission. This, they said, infringes on the separation of powers.
They cited previous rulings reaffirming the House’s authority to manage impeachment proceedings without judicial interference unless there is grave abuse of discretion. According to the coalition, the Court’s ruling blurred these boundaries and encroached on legislative functions.
Concerns on Retroactive Application
1Sambayan pointed out that the Supreme Court invalidated acts by both the House and Senate that were lawful when performed. They warned that applying new standards retroactively imposes unfair restrictions that did not exist when the fourth complaint was transmitted and acted upon.
Notably, the Senate had convened as an impeachment court and even issued a summons to Vice President Duterte before the Court’s intervention halted the process.
Call for Prospective Application and Oral Arguments
The coalition urged the Court to apply its new interpretation prospectively, sparing past actions from invalidation. They referenced legal doctrines advocating that new rulings should not punish parties who relied on established precedents in good faith.
Beyond seeking to overturn the July 25 decision, 1Sambayan asked the Supreme Court to schedule oral arguments. They believe open, adversarial proceedings will clarify factual and legal issues, promote judicial rigor, and enhance public trust in the justice system.
They argued that public hearings would educate citizens and legal professionals, ensuring transparency and reinforcing confidence in the Court’s decisions.
As of now, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this motion for reconsideration.
For more news and updates on impeachment trial, visit Filipinokami.com.
