AFTER over six hours of deliberation, the Senate of the Philippines has voted to archive the articles of impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, effectively halting the process following the ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring the impeachment complaints “unconstitutional.”
Among those who voted in favor of the motion made by Deputy Senate Majority Leader Rodente Marcoleta to archive the articles of impeachment against Duterte were Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero and Senator Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano, Raffy and Erwin Tulfo, Camille and Mark Villar, JV Ejercito, Jinggoy Estrada, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, Christopher “Bong” Go, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, Lito Lapid, Sherwin Gatchalian, Loren Legarda, Joel Villanueva, and Juan Miguel Zubiri.
“Alam po ninyo, Mr. President, kumbaga po sa nagluto ng sinaing, pasensya na po kayo kung kinakailangan ako po'y gagawa ng paghahalintulad ano po, ang impeachment complaint po ay parang sinaing na niluto ng House of Representatives. Hilaw po eh!” he added.
(You know, Mr. President, if I may use an analogy, please excuse me for making a comparison — the impeachment complaint is like rice being cooked by the House of Representatives. It's undercooked!)
Voting “no” were Senate Minority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros, and Senators Bam Aquino and Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan.
Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson abstained from voting.
Marcoleta initially made a motion for the dismissal of the articles of impeachment filed before the Senate by the House of Representatives, in compliance to the declaration of the SC, which is “immediately executory.”
Attempting to block Marcoleta’s motion for dismissal, Sotto moved to table or defer action on the rookie senator’s motion, noting that the House of Representatives just recently filed a motion for reconsideration on the SC’s ruling.
Sotto’s motion lost by a vote of 19-5.
“Why are we rushing to dismiss the case?” said Sotto.
“Just to remind everyone, the reversal of the Supreme Court's own decision is not impossible, even in landmark cases,” he added.
Hontiveros, Pangilinan and Aquino shared the same views as Sotto that the ruling of the SC declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional was not yet final and executory.
“Wala pa nga pong final na decision. Kahit ang Supreme Court, inaantay pa ang comment ng [Vice President],” said Hontiveros.
(There isn’t even a final decision yet. Even the Supreme Court is still waiting for the [Vice President’s] comment.)
(Mr. President, I agree, and I continue to respect the Supreme Court -- that will not change. But respecting the Court doesn’t mean staying silent, especially when so much is at stake. There’s a difference between showing respect and being blind.)
Heeding to the manifestation and suggestions made by some of his colleagues, Marcoleta agreed to amend his motion from dismissal to archiving.
Villanueva, who proposed for the amendment of Marcoleta’s motion, said the articles of impeachment cannot be dismissed forthwith since they are acting as a legislative body during the plenary and not as an impeachment court, which means that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the case in the first place.
Zubiri explained that archiving the articles of impeachment will allow the Senate to still pull out the case should the SC rectify its decision.
Pulling out a case that was already archived will need the support of the majority.
Sotto warned that once a case is archived, “it is dead.”
Those who voted in favor of archiving the articles of impeachment agreed that the Senate must follow and be aligned with the decision of the SC, which is a co-equal branch of the government.
“Since may finding ang Supreme Court na cinircumvent 'yung one-year bar, hindi ka ngayon pwedeng mag-operative fact dahil para mong nire-reward ‘yung circumvention… May option ba tayo not to follow the Constitution? In actuality, as an institution, we have to follow, hindi po ba? If the SC reconsiders, then we will follow. If they don't reconsider, we will still follow,” he added.
(Since the Supreme Court found that the one-year bar was circumvented, we can’t invoke the operative fact doctrine -- it would be like rewarding the circumvention. Do we even have the option not to follow the Constitution? As an institution, we must comply. If the Supreme Court reconsiders, we will follow. If not, we will still follow.)
In a statement, Duterte’s impeachment trial spokesperson, lawyer Michael Poa, said the Vice President’s defense team acknowledged the Senate’s decision to adhere to the SC ruling and archive the articles of impeachment.
On July 25, the SC announced that 13 justices voted in favor of declaring the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, as it violated the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Right, as well as Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, which states that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
The articles of impeachment referred to the Senate by the House of Representatives on February 5, the last day of Congress before it went on a four-month break ahead of the May 2025 midterm polls, was the fourth impeachment complaint filed against Duterte before the lower chamber since December 2025.
Among the basis of the impeachment complaints was Duterte’s alleged involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez; the malversation of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education (Deped) during her time as the secretary from 2022 to 2024; and the bribery and corruption in the DepEd. (TPM/SunStar Philippines)