Supreme Court’s Basic Error on Sara Duterte Case Timeline
Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio has urged the Supreme Court to reconsider a basic timeline error in its ruling that dismissed the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. The timeline issue is central to the case and questions the Court’s unanimous decision.
At a recent media forum in Manila, Carpio highlighted that the Supreme Court’s July 25 decision overlooked the fact that the House of Representatives approved the fourth impeachment complaint before it adjourned on February 5, 2025. This omission, he said, was fundamental and must be reexamined.
“That’s a very basic error there, and I think it deserves to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court,” Carpio said, reflecting on his nearly 20 years on the high court.
Understanding the Timeline and Impeachment Complaint Approval
The Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment complaint violated the one-year bar rule in Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. It stated that the first three complaints filed in December 2024 were deemed dismissed when Congress adjourned on February 5, triggering a one-year ban on initiating new impeachment proceedings against the same official.
However, Carpio maintained that the fourth complaint was approved by the House hours before adjournment. He explained, “They approved it at 3:37 p.m. It reached the Senate at 4:57 p.m. And the House adjourned at 7:15 p.m.”
“The court said that upon adjournment, the one-year bar took effect. So it did not affect the fourth complaint, because it was already approved before that,” he added.
Reliance on News Reports Instead of Official Records
Carpio also criticized the Supreme Court for relying on a news report rather than official House records when it claimed the complaint was never approved. “It’s there in the journal,” he stressed. “The court could have easily asked: ‘Did you approve it?’ It was even unanimous. There was a motion, no objection, and the required one-third voted for it.”
Strengthened Complaint and Consolidation Explained
The Court recognized that the first three complaints were archived and declared the fourth complaint barred due to the one-year rule. But Carpio insisted the House had approved the fourth complaint before archiving the earlier ones.
“After the fourth complaint was voted by the plenary to be sent to the Senate, the House plenary archived the first three complaints,” he said.
Carpio emphasized that the final complaint was a consolidation and strengthening of the earlier complaints. It contained stronger allegations and more attachments, backed by the same lawmakers who supported the previous complaints.
“So even those who endorsed the first three complaints joined in endorsing the fourth,” he noted. “It substituted and strengthened the grounds. So how can you say there’s a conflict?”
Under House rules, a complaint endorsed by at least one-third of members can be filed directly with the Secretary General. Carpio said this step was completed on the tenth session day, just before the plenary vote. “They were very conscious of the tenth session day,” he added. “It took time to put the complaint together. They complied.”
Clarifying Session Days Versus Calendar Days
Constitutional Commission Commissioner Christian Monsod supported the Court’s recognition that “session days” differ from calendar days. This distinction helped explain why the February 5 filing fell within constitutional limits.
“The decision of the court accepted that definition—that, for example, three days of hearings may only be counted as one session day,” Monsod explained.
“That’s why people are asking why it reached February 3 to 5, it’s because of the session day interpretation,” he added.
Monsod also reiterated that the House had the authority to consolidate complaints, and affirmed that the process was duly followed.
Supreme Court’s Handling of the Case Faces Questions
Carpio and Monsod expressed concerns about how the Supreme Court managed the case prior to its ruling. After months of silence, the Court ordered Congress to respond to constitutional questions on impeachment on July 8. The House complied by July 21. Then, from July 22 to 24, the Court was closed due to heavy flooding.
Despite these delays, the Court convened a special en banc session on July 25, issuing a 97-page decision authored by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. The ruling dismissed the complaint based on the one-year bar rule and the Vice President’s due process rights.
Carpio criticized the Court’s omission of oral arguments, which are common in high-profile constitutional cases. “The better practice would be to call for oral argument,” he said. “It’s not mandatory. But to have an overall appreciation of what happened, you have to call one.”
He noted that the Court missed an opportunity to clarify whether the House had approved the fourth complaint. “They didn’t ask that in the interrogatories. They just assumed, based on a newspaper report, that it was never taken up. But it’s basic,” he said.
While acknowledging the Court’s discretion, Carpio warned, “The court will lose credibility if they say there was no approval by the plenary when in fact there was—and it’s in the records.”
For more news and updates on Sara Duterte case, visit Filipinokami.com.
