MANILA, Philippines—Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and 1987 Constitution framer Christian Monsod have urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its recent ruling that voided the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. They warned that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, making the impeachment process nearly impossible to use as a tool for accountability.
Carpio and Monsod emphasized that the Senate should pause any action on the ruling, which nullified the impeachment proceedings on the grounds of violating the one-year bar rule and the respondent’s right to due process. They noted that the decision is not yet final since the House of Representatives has already filed a motion for reconsideration.
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct any error,” Carpio explained during a public forum. “So I would think the Senate should just hold in abeyance any action because it’s not yet final. Normally, you act when it’s already final.”
The Senate scheduled deliberations on the Supreme Court’s ruling for August 6. Senate President Francis Escudero previously stated that while he respects the Court’s decision, the chamber must first discuss it collectively before proceeding.
Senate Urged to Hold Actions
“It’s only executory but not yet final because the House still has a motion for reconsideration,” Carpio stressed. “If there’s still a chance, because it’s not yet final, there’s a chance it could be reversed or changed.”
The House of Representatives confirmed it will file a motion for reconsideration, urging the Supreme Court to overturn its July 25 decision that declared the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte “void ab initio,” or invalid from the start.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous 13-0 ruling stated that the February 5 House endorsement of the complaint breached the Vice President’s due process rights and violated the constitutional one-year bar on impeachment. The Court found that the Vice President was not informed or given the chance to respond before the complaint was sent to the Senate. However, Carpio and Monsod argued that this interpretation misreads both the Constitution’s text and intent.
Impeachment ‘Practically Impossible’ Under New Rules
Carpio warned that the ruling effectively rewrites impeachment procedures in ways the Constitution never intended. “The new rules will practically make it impossible to file an impeachment complaint,” he said.
He explained that the Supreme Court now requires that even before the House refers a complaint to the Committee on Justice, the respondent must be furnished a copy of the draft Articles of Impeachment and allowed to respond in a hearing—none of which existing laws or precedents mandate.
“The Constitution says the impeachment complaint should be referred to the Committee on Justice within three session days. I don’t think there’s enough time for the plenary to debate, draft, notify the person being impeached, allow comments, and conduct a hearing,” Carpio remarked. “Then you repeat the same procedure at the committee level. So it’s doubled.”
He stressed that this procedural burden goes against the framers’ original intent. “During the Constitutional Commission discussions, they said the purpose was to relax requirements, to make it easier to file an impeachment complaint,” he noted.
Due Process Misapplied at Plenary Level
Monsod, who helped draft the 1987 Constitution, questioned the Supreme Court’s basis for the due process claim. He argued that the plenary vote in the House is not a hearing where due process applies.
> “They said that the House violated due process by not informing the Vice President so the Vice President can defend herself. That happens in the hearing in the Senate,” Monsod said. “Even the basis for the Supreme Court ruling of lack of due process is wrong.”
Carpio agreed, comparing a hearing at the plenary to demanding a full trial before investigation. “It’s like filing a complaint at the prosecutor’s office. The chief prosecutor reads it and refers it to an investigating prosecutor. There’s no hearing there. The hearing happens with the investigator,” he explained.
One-Year Bar Rule Misinterpreted
Carpio also challenged the Court’s interpretation of the constitutional one-year prohibition on filing multiple impeachment complaints against the same official. According to the 2003 landmark Francisco v. House of Representatives ruling, the one-year bar begins only when a complaint is received by the House justice committee, signaling favorable action.
However, the Supreme Court’s Duterte ruling applies the bar even to dismissed complaints. “The purpose of the bar is to protect public officials from harassment by multiple suits,” Carpio said. “But if the complaint is dismissed, there’s no harassment because it never reached the committee. There was no hearing.”
He emphasized that the bar should only apply when full proceedings occur that might affect the official’s duties.
Retroactive Application Raises Concerns
Carpio warned that the Court’s new procedural requirements were applied retroactively, invalidating the House’s February action, which was valid under the rules existing at that time.
> “At the time when the House approved the fourth complaint, there was no requirement to hold a hearing. Ngayon lang ini-impose,” he said. “You cannot make it retroactive because the House’s action was valid then.”
Monsod added that the ruling disregards all previous steps—from the Senate’s issuance of summons to the exchange of pleadings—and delays accountability.
> “What if the charges are true? They have postponed the filing for one year. What harm is that to the people by that decision?” Monsod asked. “They are jumping over things that have already happened and all due process, and on top of that is the one-year prohibition. Is that correct, or are they overreaching their powers?”
Both Carpio and Monsod urged the Supreme Court to carefully reconsider the House’s appeal, given the broad consequences of the ruling on the impeachment process and public accountability.
For more news and updates on impeachment complaint, visit Filipinokami.com.
