MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court ruling on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte has sparked intense debate. Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III is among the officials questioning the Supreme Court ruling on Sara Duterte impeachment.
Sotto challenges the Court’s July 25 decision authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, which declared unconstitutional the third mode of filing impeachment complaints—specifically those initiated directly by the House of Representatives. He argues the ruling is based on a flawed understanding of congressional rules.
Leonen’s Understanding of Congressional Rules Questioned
In a July 31 interview on the Facts First podcast, Sotto expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision. “Meron akong hindi nagustuhan doon sa decision na sinasabi ni Justice Leonen,” he said. He highlighted that the Court wrongly stated the first three impeachment complaints were “archived” due to the adjournment of the 19th Congress on February 5, 2025.
“Mukhang unfamiliar si Justice Leonen sa rules ng Kongreso, which is found in the Constitution. Gusto ba niya amyendahin din ito?” Sotto added, stressing that February 5 was only a legislative recess, not the official sine die adjournment which actually occurred on June 13, 2025.
He explained that no complaints should be considered archived before the sine die adjournment, which formally ends a Congress. “Kung may naa-archive ‘yan, isipin mo pag nag-break kami ng September, archive na lahat na naka-pending,” he said, underscoring the impracticality of the Court’s interpretation.
Flawed Premise Leads to Flawed Ruling
On August 6, during Senate deliberations on whether to dismiss or defer Duterte’s impeachment complaint, Sotto raised the same points. Ultimately, the Senate chose to “archive” the complaint, effectively suspending action without dismissal.
Sotto pointed out the Supreme Court repeatedly cited the February 5 adjournment as the reason the House failed to act on the initial complaints. However, he stressed this was a mistake, as the adjournment sine die happened months later. “Nothing dies—the treaties, bills, resolutions, and anything filed continue. It is never archived,” he said.
He also noted that the House archived the complaints only on February 6, not on February 5 as the Court claimed. Moreover, this was due to the filing of a fourth complaint, not the end of Congress. “Eh dito pa lang, pilit na pilit na pinapatunayan na barred ang fourth complaint,” Sotto remarked, highlighting what he sees as forced reasoning.
Decision Called “Hilaw na Desisyon”
Sotto criticized the Supreme Court for a lack of consultation and transparency, especially given the constitutional significance of the case. “Wala man lang oral arguments, or at the very least, a consultation with some members of Congress or members of the Bar na nakakaintindi ng rules of Congress,” he said.
He suggested Justice Leonen might be unfamiliar with congressional procedures. “Gusto nila palitan [ang rules natin]? Ganoon ba ‘yun?”
The former Senate president also commented on the ruling’s structure. “Several lawyers have mentioned this to me, including my grandson, former Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III—they were confused by how the decision was written. It’s incoherent and some parts are off-topic,” Sotto said. “Para bang pinag-tagpi-tagpi.”
Warning Against Setting Dangerous Precedents
Sotto cautioned that accepting the ruling as final could undermine not only the current impeachment process but also past cases like those of President Joseph Estrada and Chief Justice Renato Corona. He questioned the Court’s claim that the Senate impeachment court had not yet convened, noting the court met on June 10 and issued summons.
“The Supreme Court essentially amended the Constitution by removing the third mode of filing… This third—and speedy—mode was enshrined for a reason,” he said. He urged the Senate not to dismiss the complaint immediately and to wait for the Supreme Court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court Ruling Pending Reconsideration
The Supreme Court’s ruling voiding the fourth complaint and dismissing earlier ones remains unsettled. The House of Representatives, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the Court to reverse its decision.
Sotto echoed calls for the Court to recognize and correct its errors. “Justice Leonen himself said… ‘The Supreme Court is not perfect.’ Tama po ‘yun. Even the Supreme Court can commit grave abuse of discretion or a culpable violation of the Constitution,” he said. “For all we know, it is a unanimous mistake.”
For more news and updates on Supreme Court ruling on Sara Duterte impeachment, visit Filipinokami.com.
