SC Faces Plea to Stop Senate Impeachment Trial
On June 11, legal experts requested the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the Senate from moving forward with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. This supplemental petition came even as the Senate decided to send back the impeachment articles to the House of Representatives.
A group of lawyers led by Israelito Torreon urged the SC to step in due to constitutional concerns surrounding the impeachment. They highlighted new and critical developments in the Senate’s impeachment proceedings, focusing on the decision of senators to convene as an impeachment court after taking oaths, despite questions about jurisdiction and the interpretation of “forthwith” in the Constitution.
Constitutional Issues Prompt Call for SC Intervention
The lawyers argued that the SC must act to prevent any government branch from exceeding its constitutional limits. “These cases, taken together, clearly establish that this Honorable Court has the authority to issue a TRO to prevent the unconstitutional abuse of impeachment proceedings,” they stated.
They also stressed the need for the SC to address what they describe as grave abuse of discretion by the House in transmitting impeachment articles to the Senate. The petitioners reminded that constitutional limits such as proper deliberation, verification, adherence to rules, and the one-year bar on impeachment complaints must be respected. Courts have a duty to ensure these boundaries are not ignored.
Senate Jurisdiction and Legislative Discontinuity Concerns
Moreover, the group pointed out that the Senate cannot serve as an impeachment court once the 19th Congress ends on June 30, 2025. They claimed that allowing the 20th Congress to resume the trial would violate legislative discontinuity principles and undermine the impeachment process.
They argued, “To permit the 20th Congress to resume the trial would be to allow a new Senate—partly composed of members who did not deliberate on the articles—to adjudicate a case for which they were not constitutionally convened.”
Allegations of Defective Impeachment Complaints
In the original petition, Torreon and fellow lawyers challenged the impeachment proceedings, arguing they are based on defective articles. They claimed the complaint lacked proper verification and failed to follow constitutional requirements for initiating impeachment.
Specifically, they noted the fourth impeachment complaint signed by 215 House members lacked the required affidavit verification under House Rules. The rule demands that a complainant must attest to the truthfulness of allegations based on personal knowledge or authentic records. Mere signatures do not fulfill this requirement.
Vice President Duterte’s Own Petition Against Impeachment
Vice President Duterte also filed a petition on January 19 challenging the impeachment complaint. She cited violations of the “One-Year Bar” provision, which prohibits more than one impeachment proceeding against an official within a year.
She further sought a TRO, claiming the impeachment complaint was politically motivated. The SC responded by requiring the House and Senate to submit their comments on both her petition and the lawyers’ supplemental filing.
Pending Petitions Await Supreme Court Resolution
Other petitions filed by individuals such as a high school teacher and a former government counsel remain unresolved. The Supreme Court is currently in its decision-writing period and will resume sessions on July 1.
For more news and updates on Supreme Court, visit Filipinokami.com.