Lawyer Questions Supreme Court’s Special Treatment
MANILA — Lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr. has raised concerns over the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision to prioritize two petitions challenging the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. He argues the SC gave undue precedence to these petitions over his own, which calls for the Senate to immediately start the impeachment trial. This situation highlights the issue of the Supreme Court’s special treatment of Sara Duterte’s case.
“By deciding Duterte’s petition ahead of mine, the SC committed a culpable and inexcusable violation of the Constitution,” Generillo said in a statement sent to local news sources on Monday.
Timeline Dispute Over Petitions
Generillo, formerly a special counsel for the Presidential Commission on Good Government, explained that his petition was filed on February 14 and was ready for resolution by May 20, following the Senate’s comment submission on May 19. In contrast, Duterte’s petition, filed on February 18, only became ready for decision on July 17, after the House of Representatives submitted its final pleading.
Both petitions challenging the impeachment were filed separately on the same day—Duterte’s by herself and another by a Mindanao lawyers’ group headed by Israelito Torreon.
Duterte’s Petition Seeks to Halt Impeachment Trial
Duterte requested the SC to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the Senate from proceeding with her impeachment trial. A conviction in this trial would bar her from holding any public office.
On July 25, the SC declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional. The court cited violations such as the one-year ban on filing multiple complaints against an impeachable official and breaches of due process rights.
Legal Arguments on Constitutional Deadlines
Generillo pointed to Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that all cases filed before the SC must be decided within 24 months from the date of submission. He emphasized that “submission” means the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by court rules.
Rule 13 of the SC also states that cases should be resolved within 24 months from submission and defines submission similarly. Given this timeline, Generillo insists the SC has a constitutional duty to resolve his petition before Duterte’s.
“Maintaining public trust in the judiciary and ensuring speedy justice depends on the SC’s compliance with this duty,” he added.
Alleged Constitutional Violation
Generillo lamented that the SC’s decision to prioritize Duterte’s petition amounted to a blatant violation of the Constitution and the Court’s own interim rules. As of this writing, the SC has not responded to requests for comment.
Background on Duterte’s Impeachment
The House of Representatives impeached Vice President Duterte on February 5 after 215 lawmakers endorsed a fourth complaint. This accelerated the process and sent the case to the Senate for trial.
The impeachment complaint accuses Duterte of culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft, corruption, and betrayal of public trust. Allegations include misuse of confidential funds and issuing death threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez.
For more news and updates on Supreme Court special treatment of Sara Duterte’s case, visit Filipinokami.com.
