The Supreme Court (SC) required Congress to answer the petition of Vice President Sara Duterte who sought the nullification of the impeachment charges filed against her.
During its full court session on Tuesday, Feb. 25, the SC required the House of Representatives and its Secretary General Reginald S. Velasco, and the Senate to submit their comments in a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice.
The impeachment charges were filed by the House of Representatives before the Senate last Feb. 5, the day the latter declared its recess for the 2025 elections.
The six major allegations contained in the seven articles of impeachment against Duterte are conspiracy to assassinate President Marcos; malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds; bribery and corruption in Department of Education (DepEd); unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets; involvement in extrajudicial killings (Davao Death Squad); and destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder.
In her petition filed last Feb. 18, Duterte alleged that the fourth impeachment complaint filed before the House of Representatives which forwarded it to the Senate violated 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 press briefer issued by SC Spokesperson lawyer Camille Sue Mae L. Ting did not state whether the SC acted on the petition filed by Mindanao lawyers and residents who also sought to declare the impeachment “null and void.”
They told the SC the Articles of Impeachment were null and void “for failure to meet constitutional requirements on verification and proper initiation of impeachment proceedings and for failure to accord due process to Vice-President Duterte prior to the filing with the Senate….”
When asked why the SC did not act on the petition, Spokesperson Ting said: “I am not privy to the court’s deliberation. So, we’ll just have to wait and see that the court will do after.”
At the same time, Ting said “the court is still studying whether these cases should be consolidated.”
Earlier, the SC had required comment on the petition filed by lawyer Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr. who cited Section 3(4) of Article XI 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.”
Generillo told the SC that the meanings of “forthwith” in Oxford Dictionary are “immediately,” “at once,” “instantly,” “directly,” “right away,” “straight away,” “now,” “instantaneously,” and “without delay.”
In her petition, Duterte asked the SC that “after proper proceedings, issue a final injunction, nullify and set aside the Fourth Impeachment Complaint filed on February 5, 2025, declare the One-Year Bar to be applicable from the filing of the First Impeachment Complaint, declare the Fourth Impeachment Complaint to be violative of the One-Year Bar under Section 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution and therefore prohibited, and consequently, enjoin respondent Senate or any of its members or representatives from acting on the Fourth Impeachment Complaint in any way.”