Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Political Crisis
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court’s decision on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte signals a “merely political crisis,” not a constitutional one, legal experts say. The four-word keyphrase “Supreme Court ruling sparks” reflects the core of this unfolding situation.
Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal commented shortly after the Supreme Court unanimously declared the impeachment complaint against Duterte unconstitutional and barred it under the “one-year rule.” Despite this, the case has stirred intense political debate, underscoring the difference between legal and political challenges.
Legal Perspectives on the Supreme Court Ruling
Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting clarified that Duterte is not cleared of the charges by this ruling. Macalintal emphasized that the ruling deserves respect, especially since the issues and involved parties are predominantly political rather than legal in nature.
He referenced Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan’s dissenting opinion from a separate case, which warned against political disputes entering the judiciary’s domain. “It is a distasteful and disheartening scenario to behold when political matters rightfully pertaining to political actors find their way to our highest temple of justice, where politics and factionalism must halt at the Court’s gate,” Gaerlan wrote.
Political Crisis Looming as Motion for Reconsideration Expected
Macalintal pointed out that the political turmoil will intensify once the House of Representatives files a motion for reconsideration (MR) before the Supreme Court. Although the ruling is “immediately executory,” it is not yet final, allowing the House or Senate to seek reconsideration.
Until the MR is resolved, the Senate may continue hearings on Duterte’s impeachment case, as senators, acting as the Impeachment Court, hold jurisdiction—not the Supreme Court.
House of Representatives Challenges Supreme Court Decision
House spokesperson lawyer Princess Abante confirmed the lower chamber’s plan to file an MR citing “factual errors” and contradictions with official records. She criticized the Supreme Court for imposing new procedural requirements absent from the Constitution or House rules.
Abante explained, “Based on the Court, any complaint that is signed and verified by 1/3 of the members need to be read by every signatory and will be referred to the plenary to vote. The respondent should also be given a copy and opportunity to answer the complaint before being transmitted to the Senate. But there are no requirements like these on the Constitution or rules of the House.” She also noted Duterte’s absence from House panel hearings despite invitations to present her side.
Legal Maneuvers and Impeachment Court Proceedings Ahead
Macalintal expects Duterte’s legal team to file a motion to dismiss the case based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, arguing the Senate lacks jurisdiction due to the one-year rule and due process violations—since Duterte was not allowed to adequately respond before transmission to the Senate.
He added, “The motion to dismiss might be opposed by the prosecutors. Thereafter, the Impeachment Court may hear the arguments of the parties, either by oral arguments or by pleadings.” The senator-judges’ questions during these proceedings will likely reveal their personal or partisan stances on this highly politicized matter.
For more news and updates on Vice President Sara Duterte impeachment, visit Filipinokami.com.
