ASEANEWS HEADLINE-Philippine Elections | MANILA: VP challenges 4th impeach rap at SC
Vice President Sara Duterte/ STAR / File
VP Duterte asks SC to nullify impeachment raps against her citing one-year ban, abuse of discretion
.
.
MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify the impeachment case lodged against her for allegedly violating the constitutional provision that bars the filing of more than one complaint within one year once proceedings have been initiated.
Duterte filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on Feb. 18 through the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law offices, which sought a temporary restraining order against the Senate from acting on the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted by the House of Representatives, which serves as the Articles of Impeachment.
Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, has signed on as legal counsel in her petition before the SC, along with five other lawyers.
In her petition, the Vice President argued that the House of Representatives “deliberately circumvented” the one-year bar provision by directing its secretary general to allegedly give them more time to file the fourth impeachment complaints despite the filing of three separate complaints in December last year.
The reason for this, she said, is to allow the House members to gather the required number of signatures “to railroad the impeachment process to beat the May 12, 2025 elections.”
“Unfortunately, this political stratagem was done at the expense of constitutional standards that respondents, as public officers, are mandated to observe, with the ultimate goal of having the petitioner perpetually disqualified from running for any national elective office in the future,” Duterte’s petition read.
Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, no impeachment proceedings “shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
Duterte contended that by directing House Secretary General Reginald Velasco to “freeze” the first three impeachment complaints, the House of Representatives “committee grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by circumventing and violating the one-year bar.”
She cited public statements of Velasco where he said 12 members of the House of Representatives, whom he did not name, asked him not to transmit the first three complaints to the Office of the Speaker to allegedly give them more time to decide whether or not to file another impeachment complaint.
Duterte attested that the House of Representatives should have been barred from filing the fourth impeachment complaint since three other impeachment complaints have been filed against her and had been deemed initiated when the House of Representatives took “initial action” by “deliberately freezing” the first three complaints.
She argued that impeachment proceedings are deemed “initiated” once an impeachment complaint has been filed and Congress took “initial” action on the complaint.
Duterte also argued that the House of Representatives committed grave abuse of discretion when it asked Velasco to hold the first three impeachment complaints, since the House secretary general is required to immediately refer the complaint to the Speaker, as mandated by Section 3, Rule II of the House Rules on Impeachment.
|
|
.
The referral of the complaint, she said, is “certainly not dependent on the discretion” of Velasco.
With this, she argued that the House of Representatives violated its own rules of impeachment when it “practically allowed and cajoled” Velasco to freeze the first three complaints, especially when Velasco had said the complaints had been verified and were ready to be transmitted anytime.
The impeachment complaints, Duterte added, could be used as a “tool for harassment,” saying the secretary general could “revive” an impeachment complaint that has been filed for years by simply referring it to the Speaker.
“There could thus only be one consequence – apply the One-Year Bar and consequently, declare the fourth impeachment complaint as null and void due to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” the petition read.
The SC said the petition would be raffled on Feb. 24 to determine who would be the justice-in-charge of the case. The case may then be included for deliberation during the SC’s full court session on Feb. 25.
The SC has directed the Senate to answer in a non-extendible period of 10 days the petition seeking the immediate trial of Duterte.
|
|
.
The Court acted on the petition filed by lawyer Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr. who cited Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution which states: “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
In a separate petition, the high tribunal has also been asked to stop the Senate from conducting the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte and to declare the Articles of Impeachment “null and void” for failing to meet constitutional requirements on verification and proper initiation of impeachment proceedings, as well as failing to accord due process to Duterte prior to the filing with the Senate.
The first three impeachment complaints cited by the Vice President in her petition were those filed by Akbayan Citizen’s Action Party Rep. Percival Cendaña, Makabayan Koalisyon ng Mamamayan and ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro, and Ang Asosasyon San Mangunguma Nga Bisaya OWA Mangunguma Inc.
.
|
|
.
Sara ‘rattled and desperate’
House lawmakers yesterday slammed impeached Vice President Duterte over her attempt to stop her impending impeachment trial through a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court.
Senior deputy speaker Aurelio Gonzales Jr., deputy speaker David Suarez, House assistant majority leader Jude Acidre, and the Makabayan bloc of Reps. France Castro, Arlene Brosas and Raoul Manuel said the former Davao City mayor is nervous.
“VP Duterte’s petition is nothing more than a desperate attempt to evade accountability. They’re now afraid that’s why they want to stop the impeachment process. The Constitution is clear – impeachment is the sole prerogative of Congress,” Gonzales stressed.
Suarez, representative of the second district of Quezon province, warned that Duterte’s petition before the high tribunal sets a “dangerous precedent of judicial overreach into a purely constitutional process.”
“The House will not be deterred by legal theatrics. We will continue to uphold our constitutional mandate and ensure that the impeachment process proceeds fairly and transparently,” Suarez added.
“If she truly believes she is innocent, she should face the charges head-on instead of running to the courts for protection. This attempt to short-circuit the process only raises more questions about what she is trying to hide,” Suarez pointed out.
|
|
.
Acidre, for his part, declared: “The Vice President is clearly rattled. Her desperation is showing, and no amount of political maneuvering can hide it.”
“Just months ago, she declared she welcomed the impeachment complaint. Now, she’s pulling every trick in the book to stop it from moving forward. If she truly had nothing to hide, why the sudden fear? Her hypocrisy is staggering,” the Tingog party-list congressman added.
“And she has every reason to be scared. The House Prosecution Panel is prepared to lay out damning evidence against her, and the Filipino people are watching. She should be scared – because the truth is closing in, and no amount of deception will save her from it,” he said.
In a joint statement, militant and progressive lawmakers Castro, Brosas and Manuel condemned Duterte’s new ploy.
“This action is not only premature but also a blatant evasion of accountability. We strongly condemn Vice President Duterte’s attempt to impede the impeachment trial by seeking a TRO from the SC,” the trio declared.
“The move to halt the trial is a clear indication of her refusal to face the charges against her at the appropriate venue. The appropriate venue is the impeachment court not the SC. By resorting to legal maneuvers, she is reinforcing a troubling pattern of avoiding accountability,” Castro noted.
Gabriela’s Brosas said: “Whatever happened to her earlier statement welcoming the impeachment and preparing her defense team? It is evident now that she is backtracking on her words. This is not just rejecting accountability but having no word of honor at all.”
Manuel, of Kabataan party-list, insisted that the only venue is the Senate Impeachment Court.
  |
.
SC unlikely to interfere
The Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere with Congress in the impeachment of Vice President Duterte, a congressman-prosecutor said yesterday.
“I have yet to read the petition. But as a rule, impeachment is a political question and the Supreme Court will exercise judicial restraint. It will not interfere with the impeachment process,” House deputy majority leader and Iloilo Rep. Lorenz Defensor said.
The House of Representatives impeached Duterte by an overwhelming vote of 215 congressmen, more than double the 103 required for a petition to go directly to the Senate for trial. — Delon Porcalla, Jose Rodel Clapano
.
|
|
Memento Maxima Digital Marketing
