Confusion and debate have surged following the Supreme Court impeachment ruling on Vice President Sara Duterte. Buried deep within the 97-page decision is a line that questions the Court’s fact-finding: the claim that the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote. This exact four word keyphrase has since become central to discussions about the Court’s reliance on information sources.
According to the ponencia authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, House Secretary Velasco sent the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate at 4:47 p.m. on February 5, 2025, without a plenary vote. However, this statement contradicts official records and the very media reports cited as evidence, igniting calls for accountability and transparency.
Discrepancies in Supreme Court Impeachment Ruling
Community members and legal observers have scrutinized the Court’s reliance on news reports rather than official congressional records. The cited network had, in fact, aired the House plenary vote live, reporting that 215 out of 306 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint prior to its transmission to the Senate.
This inconsistency has raised an important question: how did the Supreme Court impeachment ruling come to rest on a claim directly contradicted by both the legislative record and the source it referenced?
Petitioners Challenge Reliance on Media Reports
Opposition coalition 1Sambayan, in its Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 5, criticized the Court’s dependence on news articles as “misplaced and contrary to law and public policy.” They stressed that unverified media reports should never form the basis of a Supreme Court impeachment ruling.
“Surely, petitioners cannot expect the Court to act on unverified reports foisted on it,” the group stressed, citing the Court’s earlier rejection of media reports as evidence in a 2010 case.
Former Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio also weighed in, emphasizing that the Court could have easily confirmed facts from official House records instead of relying on secondary sources.
“So the decision says there was no approval, citing a news report. A news report, when the court could have easily asked the question: Did you approve it? They could have shown the records. It’s there. The journal is there,” Carpio stated during a public forum.
What Happened During the February 5 Session?
The official House Journal and transcripts provide clear evidence. Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe confirmed that the impeachment complaint met the one-third constitutional threshold and moved to endorse it to the Senate.
“The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General is so directed,” the presiding officer declared. Minutes later, a panel of prosecutors was elected to handle the case.
At 5:49 p.m., House Secretary-General Reginald Velasco formally transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to Senate Secretary Renato Bantug.
Even the petitioners opposing the impeachment, led by lawyer Israelito Torreon, acknowledged this in their pleadings: “The motion was adopted without objection, and the impeachment complaint was officially transmitted to the Senate on the same day at around 5:49 p.m.”
This admission deepens the mystery behind the Supreme Court impeachment ruling’s claim that no plenary vote occurred.
Media Clarifies Its Coverage
On August 6, the network cited in the ruling issued a formal clarification. They stated that their articles never claimed the impeachment articles were sent without a plenary vote. Instead, they had covered and aired live the House plenary vote endorsing the complaint.
They added that one report explicitly noted Senate Secretary Bantug received the Articles “just hours after 215 out of 306 members of the lower chamber endorsed the impeachment complaint.”
This clarification places the Court in a difficult position, as its cited source directly contradicts the ruling’s assertion.
Legal Implications of the Error
For legal experts, this is more than a minor oversight. Rule 129 of the Rules of Court mandates the Supreme Court to take judicial notice of official legislative acts. Previous cases have demonstrated the Court’s reliance on congressional records without requiring further evidence.
Critics argue that by choosing media reports over official documents, the Court bypassed primary evidence—a rare and questionable move, especially in a decision that reshaped impeachment rules.
1Sambayan contended that the reliance on unverified news reports led to findings “not supported by evidence,” undermining public confidence in the Supreme Court impeachment ruling.
Carpio highlighted the stakes: “The court will lose credibility if they say there was no approval by the plenary when in fact there was an approval of the fourth complaint… [B]asically the court should not have relied on the news report that is not official.”
Unanswered Questions and Accountability
The unusual citation raises pressing questions beyond legal circles:
- How did inaccurate information enter the ruling? Was it a misinterpretation or deliberate misinformation?
- Does this error weaken the ruling’s credibility, especially since it influenced the decision to invalidate the impeachment?
- Who is responsible for ensuring factual accuracy in high-stakes judicial decisions?
Implications for the Judiciary’s Credibility
The Supreme Court, already under scrutiny for dismissing an impeachment case without trial, now faces intensified doubts about its fact-finding process. Relying on media accounts over official records sets a concerning precedent for future constitutional cases.
Carpio suggested that the lack of oral arguments contributed to the error: “They just assumed that because of a newspaper report, it was never taken up. But it’s basic. So there should have been an oral argument.”
With several motions for reconsideration pending—including one from the House of Representatives—the Court must address both the legal and credibility challenges arising from this controversy.
Until the justices clarify how a claim contradicted by official records and media coverage was included, the question remains: who fed the Supreme Court the wrong information?
For more news and updates on Supreme Court impeachment ruling, visit Filipinokami.com.
