MANILA, Philippines — The progressive Bagong Alyansang Makabayan bloc has urgently called on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision that dismissed the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. This move aims to keep the impeachment process alive despite the Senate’s vote to archive the articles of impeachment.
The motion for reconsideration was submitted by the original complainants and endorsers of the second impeachment complaint filed last December 4. Among them are former Representatives France Castro (ACT Teachers), Raoul Manuel (Kabataan), Arlene Brosas (Gabriela), alongside sitting Kabataan Representative Renee Co and ACT Teachers Representative Antonio Tinio. They emphasized the importance of sustaining the case and upholding accountability.
Challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling
Bayan president Renato Reyes explained that their appeal was filed as intervenors in the Duterte v. House of Representatives case. The Supreme Court had ruled on July 25 that the fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by 215 lawmakers last February, violated the one-year filing bar.
The appeal stresses that allowing the Supreme Court’s ruling to stand would only make accountability harder to achieve. “It burdens the people’s recourse to a constitutional remedy with technical and procedural obstacles that the Constitution itself does not require,” their motion stated.
They further criticized the seven procedural guidelines introduced by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen’s decision. According to them, these guidelines represent a substantive rewrite of the Constitution and infringe on powers constitutionally granted exclusively to the legislature.
New procedural demands questioned
The new requirements include mandating “collective deliberation” by the House of Representatives and setting a “standard of proof” for impeachment complaints. The Supreme Court also requires that all evidence be attached to the complaint and distributed to every House member—procedures not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Moreover, the ruling demands that the respondent be heard on the draft articles of impeachment. The Makabayan group argues this imposes trial-like due process at the preliminary stage, which they say distorts the Constitution’s impeachment process design.
These demands, they add, place unnecessary procedural burdens on the House and undermine its exclusive authority to initiate impeachment.
One-year rule and complaint precedence debated
Like the House prosecution panel, the Makabayan intervenors maintain that the fourth impeachment complaint was not barred by the one-year rule. It was transmitted to the Senate on February 5—before the first three complaints filed by civil society groups on December 2, 4, and 19 were archived.
They argue the Court introduced a new interpretation, measuring the one-year bar from inaction or partial action on the complaint, even if it was never referred to the Committee on Justice. Landmark rulings, such as Francisco v. House, specify that impeachment proceedings begin upon filing and referral to the proper committee.
“Viewed in proper sequence, it was the House’s approval of the fourth impeachment complaint that initiated the sole impeachment proceeding,” the motion stated. “By contrast, the first three complaints were neither referred to the Committee on Justice nor otherwise acted upon to trigger initiation.”
They also defended the House’s decision to transmit the fourth complaint endorsed by 215 lawmakers instead of the earlier complaints filed by civil society. “The Constitution does not give precedence to citizen-filed impeachment complaints,” they said. “Both modes are distinct, co-equal, and equally valid paths to initiate impeachment proceedings.”
Multiple appeals seek to revive complaint
This group would be the third outside the House to intervene in the Supreme Court’s July 25 ruling that dismissed the fourth impeachment complaint as unconstitutional. Two civil society groups, led by Francisco Dee and the coalition 1Sambayan and Taumbayan Ayaw sa Magnanakaw at Abusado Network, filed their own appeals earlier in August.
The Makabayan-endorsed complaint, like the others, accuses Vice President Duterte of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. These allegations arise from her alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds while serving concurrently as vice president and education secretary from 2022 to 2024.
For more news and updates on impeachment complaints, visit Filipinokami.com.
