Neophyte Senator Rodante Marcoleta on Wednesday, August 6, moved for the Senate's dismissal of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Citing the Supreme Court's (SC) decision that deemed the impeachment complaint unconstitutional, Marcoleta said that it's void ab initio, violative of due process and that the Senate in the first place did not acquire jurisdiction over it.

Marcoleta stated that he does not know of any action that brought the impeachment case "miraculously" to life in the present Congress despite its initial impeachment proceedings deemed to have been terminated at the expiration of the 19th Congress

“The decision of the Supreme Court did not dwell on the intrinsic merits of the impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President. It zeroed in merely on the procedures and the processes taken by the House of Representatives,” Marcoleta said in his privilege speech during the Senate’s plenary session.

“To repeat, it declared the whole impeachment complaint constituting the articles of impeachment to be unconstitutional, violative of due process, void of initio. Simply because the rules of procedure in impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives were never followed,” he added.

He reiterated that the House violated the one-year ban on multiple impeachment complaints as prescribed under the Constitution.

Regarding the House of Representatives' motion for reconsideration, Marcoleta stated that they cannot depend on it for their action.

“We cannot depend our action on the fortunes of litigation,” he said.

Meanwhile, when asked by Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on how to act on the motion to dismiss, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero stated that the next logical step is for the impeachment case be archived.

"We will have different interpretations of the effect of the SC decision but ultimately...once a decision is made by the Senate and the period to seek a reconsideration of that decision put to a vote has expired, the next logical step would be to archive so that it will be made part of our records," he said.

Escudero stated that given the SC decision which deemed that the Senate never acquired jurisdiction over the impeachment complaint and that the impeachment proceedings were null and void ab initio would mean that there nothing to dismiss.

"The procedure would be more properly to archive, similar to what we have done in the past," he added.

Immediately executory, but not final

Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, however, insisted that the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, although immediately executory, is not yet final.

Sotto made this reasoning when he responded to Marcoleta after the latter made the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint case against Duterte.

Because of this, the minority leader said he believes there is no reason for the Senate to rush the dismissal of the case especially since the House of Representatives had already filed a motion for reconsideration before the SC, just last Monday.

“This Supreme Court decision, although immediately executory, is not yet final, thus appealable. Ngayon na naka apela na, bakit tayo nagmamadali mag dismiss (Now that an appeal has been made, why are we rushing to dismiss this)?” Sotto pointed out in his interpellation.

Sotto further pointed out that a reversal of the SC’s own ruling is possible—even in landmark cases.

“Just to remind everyone, the reversal of the Supreme Court’s own decision is not impossible, even in landmark cases,” he said, citing La Bugal-B’laan vs. Ramos and Lily Lopez vs. Lolito Lopez as examples.

He also disputed the Court’s interpretation of adjournment, clarifying that “February 5 did not terminate the 19th Congress as stated in the decision. The sine die adjournment of the 19th Congress was on June 14, 2025, wherein the last session day was last June 11.”

“There is a world of difference between adjournment vs. a sine die adjournment. This is a transcendental case, ang laking constitutional issue nito. Wala man lang (There were even no) oral arguments or at the very least a consultation with someone from Congress regarding the procedure),” he said.

Moreover, Sotto also raised concerns that the SC is “essentially amending the Constitution” by removing the third mode of initiating impeachment complaints.

“If the Supreme Court is now changing the meaning of ‘initiating,’ then at the very least, it should be applied prospectively,” he continued.

“Pag gusto talaga may paraan, pag ayaw may dahilan. Pero wag naman sama pati sa mga ganitong bagay (If you really want it, there’s a way. If you don’t there’s always a reason. But I hope it doesn’t apply even to things like this) that will ultimately affect future impeachment and legislative rules and proceedings,” the senator added.

Sotto also said it is impossible to say that the Senate had not acquired jurisdiction on the impeachment case of the vice president.

“Anong tawag mo dun sa pag-constitute (what do you call that when they constituted) as an impeachment court? Nag-robe pa sila (they even wore robes) and even sent out summons. Ano yun, moro-moro lang (was that just a joke)?” he pointed out.

Sotto also pointed out that the SC’s ruling was “incoherent and some parts are off-topic.”

“Para bang pinagtagpi-tagpi (It's like it's been pieced together)…It even quoted the entire Article XI of the Constitution twice,” he lamented.

“Let us allow and give chance to the SC to rectify its decision, which contains clear and blatant errors, for their sake and for future impeachment proceedings,” Sotto suggested.

“Let us not dismiss forthwith!” he reiterated.