Supreme Court Affirms Senate Impeachment Court Stance
The Supreme Court’s recent order declaring Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment unconstitutional highlights the careful approach taken by the Senate impeachment court. This ruling underscores the importance of clear constitutional guidelines before proceeding with such trials.
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision supports their view that the impeachment articles needed further clarification before any trial could begin. “We acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional,” the court stated.
The Senate court explained that the ruling confirms their cautious and deliberate position. They believed that constitutional questions surrounding the impeachment articles had to be resolved prior to trial. This prudence, the court added, was recognized by the Senate majority from the start.
Awaiting Formal Transmittal and Next Steps
The Senate impeachment court said it is now waiting for the formal transmission of the Supreme Court’s order. “The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law,” they noted. The court reaffirmed its commitment to respect final rulings from the High Court as a co-equal government branch.
Moving forward, the court will consider any guidance affecting its jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s decision. “The Senate remains committed to upholding constitutional order, ensuring due process, and protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions,” the court added.
Background of the Impeachment Case
Vice President Sara Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives on February 5, following a fourth complaint signed by 215 lawmakers. The complaint alleged misuse of confidential funds, threats to officials, and other constitutional violations.
The impeachment articles were promptly sent to the Senate, as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. This requires the Senate to start a trial immediately if at least one-third of House members endorse the complaint, which was met.
Legal Challenges and Senate Response
Two petitions were filed with the Supreme Court seeking to halt the impeachment proceedings. Mindanao-based lawyers argued that the House failed to act within the required 10 session days. Meanwhile, Duterte’s legal team, including her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, claimed the process violated the rule limiting impeachment to one complaint per official per year.
The House countered these claims, presenting a session calendar to prove compliance with the 10-session-day rule. They clarified that “session days” differed from calendar or working days.
Meanwhile, the Senate did not immediately begin the trial because the articles were not introduced before the 19th Congress adjourned for the election period.
After the election break, there was anticipation for the trial’s start. Senate President Francis Escudero invited the prosecution team to present the articles on June 2. However, the session was later postponed to June 11, the final session day of the 19th Congress.
On June 10, the Senate convened as an impeachment court but voted to return the articles to the House citing constitutional issues.
Conditions for Trial to Proceed
The Senate impeachment court has consistently stated that the trial would only continue if two conditions are met. First, the House must certify that the one-impeachment-per-year constitutional limit has not been breached. Second, the prosecution team from the 20th Congress must confirm its intention to pursue the case.
While the House has fulfilled the first requirement, the prosecution team cannot yet respond as the 20th Congress will only begin its first regular session on July 28, just hours before the State of the Nation Address.
For more news and updates on Senate impeachment court, visit Filipinokami.com.
