Supreme Court urged to reconsider ruling on VP Sara impeachment
MANILA, Philippines — Several groups have urged the Supreme Court to reverse its decision halting the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte and allow the Senate to “immediately” fulfill its constitutional duty.
Two groups, particularly 1Sambayan Coalition and the Taumbayan Ayaw sa Magnanakaw at Abusado Network Alliance (TAMA NA), filed motions on Tuesday, August 5, asking the high court to reconsider its ruling that declared the impeachment complaint against Duterte unconstitutional.
Among the petitioners for 1Sambayan is former Ombudsman and Supreme Court Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, who authored the landmark ruling in Francisco Jr. et al. vs. House of Representatives. That doctrine was abandoned by the high court in its July 25 decision striking down the impeachment case against Duterte.
RELATED: ‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court bars impeachment vs VP Sara Duterte
In a motion to intervene filed on Tuesday, August 5, 1Sambayan asked to formally join the case.
“With utmost respect, the Honorable Court erred in its appreciation of evidence submitted by the parties, thereby warranting the review, revision, modification, and/or reversal of its Decision dated 25 July 2025,” the motion read. “In so doing, the Honorable Court will have the opportunity to rectify the error,” 1Sambayan's motion read.
The coalition also requested the Supreme Court to conduct oral arguments and issue a status quo ante order to prevent the Senate from dismissing the articles of impeachment while constitutional issues remain unresolved.
Similarly, TAMA NA also filed a letter-petition on Tuesday calling for oral arguments, saying the high court's decision contradicts the Constitution’s mandate.
Violation of due process. 1Sambayan argued that the court violated due process and the doctrine of separation of powers when it abandoned the Francisco doctrine without sufficient basis. They warned that the new ruling could encourage the filing of sham impeachment complaints to exploit the one-year bar rule, thereby shielding public officials from legitimate accountability.
The group contended that the House had already acted on and endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint before archiving the first three and adjourning. They emphasized that the one-year bar—meant to prevent harassment through successive complaints—should not apply in this case, as the initial three complaints were never formally “initiated” by referral to the Committee on Justice.
One-year bar rule. 1Sambayan further argued that the Supreme Court retroactively applied a new definition of “initiated,” effectively overruling the House of Representatives' internal rules and the long-established Francisco precedent.
They pointed out that the previous doctrine clearly stated that the one-year bar begins only once a verified complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice.
House response. Days after the Supreme Court's decision, the House of Representatives, through the Office of the Solicitor General, also filed a motion for reconsideration on August 4.
The House urged the justices not to “abandon their duty of judicial review” and reiterated that the exclusive power to initiate impeachment lies with the House of Representatives.
- Latest
- Trending
