The Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling that Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment complaint was unconstitutional loudly reverberated throughout the country. The majority senators abided by the SC’s decision and at first decided to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment. But due to the dissenting opinion of four minority senators, they finally agreed to archive it.
However, legal luminaries, among others, criticized the SC’s decision, through the Ponente, as having committed errors of fact. And it is an interesting point to focus on. We cannot help but raise questions: (a) were there really errors of fact? (b) were such errors honest mistakes? (c) or were such errors rather fruits of conspiracy?
(1) The first thing to show is that there were really errors of fact as pointed out by critics. These errors would become clear on the basis of Art. XI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the SC’s decision itself, and the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the House of Representatives (HoR).
First, the SC’s decision declared that the Articles of Impeachment is unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule. The first three impeachment complaints, filed by private citizens on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024, (first mode, Art. XI, Sec. 3(2)) were said already deemed initiated. And thus the one-year bar rule (Art. XI, Sec. 3(5)) already commenced. Consequently, therefore, the fourth Articles of Impeachment approved by more than 1/3 of the HOR (second mode, Art. XI, Sec. 3(4)) and submitted on February 5, 2025, violated the one-year bar rule. Hence, the SC’s decision ruled that the fourth impeachment complaint is unconstitutional.
Now, an impeachment complaint is said to be deemed initiated on the basis of two requirements: (1) a verified complaint for impeachment is filed by any citizen and endorsed by any member of the House (first mode) or by at least one-third (1/3) of all the members of the House of Representatives themselves (second mode); (2) the impeachment complaint is filed to the Secretary General, then immediately referred it to the Speaker, who then includes it in the Order of Business within ten (10) session days, and then referred it to the House Committee on Justice within three (3) session days (Rule II, HoR, Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings).
As can be seen in the MR of the HoR, the first three complaints for impeachment were not acted upon immediately. So those complaints were not referred to the House Committee on Justice. This shows that the one-year bar rule did not yet commence.
On February 5, 2025, the HoR themselves agreed that a fourth Articles of Impeachment be the one to be transmitted to the Senate, on the afternoon of the same date. After the submission to the Senate, the HoR archived the first three impeachment complaints. The sequence of these events are crucial. This shows that the one-year bar rule commenced only with the submission of the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate. Hence, the MR of the HoR asserted that the one-year bar rule prescribed by the Constitution has not been violated.
Secondly, in page 8 of the SC’s decision, fourth paragraph, it says: “At 4:47 p.m. of February 5, 2025, House Secretary Velasco transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate even without a plenary vote,” (see also footnote 30). This statement was based only on the mistaken ABS-CBN News that there was no plenary vote. ABS-CBN clarified that there was no such report. Thus, the MR of the HoR also pointed out this error of fact. (To be continued)