Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan agreed with the House of Representatives in that there was “a misapprehension of the facts” when the Supreme Court (SC) voided the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a recent cable TV news interview, Pangilinan said he thought it was premature for the Senate to archive the complaint containing the impeachment articles despite a pending motion for rreonsideration (MR) filed by the House seeking to reverse the SC's ruling to declare the impeachment case as unconstitutional.

“But one thing is for sure, is clear: that MR, the motion for reconsideration, is an opportunity for the [SC] to correct what we believe to be erroneous factual errors,” he said.

“I mean, if you do something as unprecedented as that, the least (the) [SC] could have done was check their facts. And that's why the motion for reconsideration is an opportunity for the [SC] to correct,” he added.

Pangilinan pointed out that the high court decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of an ABS-CBN report, which the news network even clarified through an official statement.

“So, if the facts are wrong, then your ruling is wrong. One hypothetical case (is) that you didn't kill the person, you know, but the court did not appreciate the facts and said you did,” he said.

“Therefore, your ruling is unjust, unfair. And that's what happened here,” the senator, a lawyer by profession, added.

There were four separate impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Duterte--three filed in December 2024 before the House Secretary General, and one that was directly transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025 after it received the required two-thirds vote of the House members.

Pangilinan further said that the SC could not use the one-year bar rule as a basis for striking down on Duterte’s impeachment case because the first three impeachment complaints were not initiated before the Vice President was impeached on the basis of a fourth impeachment complaint.

“The initiation of the first three did not occur. Its archiving [by the House] occurred after the fourth impeachment complaint was referred, transmitted to the Senate,” Pangilinan explained.

“So, there was no first or second or third initiation because what they acted on and initiated was the fourth complaint. And then they archived the three,” he noted.

“So, the facts behind saying that the fourth complaint is barred by the one-year bar because there were three other impeachment complaints that were initiated is wrong. It's actually incorrect,” stressed the Liberal Party (LP) stalwart.

Pangilinan, who voted “no” to the archiving of the articles of impeachment during a Senate plenary last Aug. 6, insisted once more that the upper chamber should have waited for the resolution of the House's MR pending before the SC.