Archived, Not Buried

On the surface, the Senate’s 19-4 vote to archive the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte looks like a decisive end to a contentious political saga. The Vice President’s camp declared it a “triumph for the rule of law,” and Senate President Francis Escudero framed the move as a procedural obligation, respecting the Supreme Court’s ruling that the complaint was unconstitutional. For many, the case is closed, the political storm has passed, and the board is being reset for the next battle.

This view, however, misses the sophisticated legal and political chess game playing out beneath the surface. This was not an ending; it was a strategic punt. The impeachment saga is not over; its battlefield has simply shifted back to the marble halls of the Supreme Court, and the Senate’s seemingly final act was, in fact, a calculated move to keep the contest alive.

The key to understanding this lies in the crucial distinction between “archiving” and “dismissing” a case—a nuance highlighted by former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio. Had the Senate, acting as the impeachment court, voted to dismiss the case outright, it would have rendered the entire issue moot. This would have given the Supreme Court a reason to deny the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by the House proponents without ever having to rule on its substance. A dismissal would have been a final kill shot.

Archiving, however, is a strategic pause. As Justice Carpio noted, “Archiving does not mean dismissal… The SC cannot now deny the MR on the ground of mootness. The SC has to decide the pending MR on the merits.” In essence, the Senate has refused to be the final arbiter, tossing the constitutional hot potato back to the Judiciary. The high court is now compelled to confront the arguments in the MR, including what Carpio calls “glaring factual errors” and a potential “violation of the doctrine of prospective overruling” from its initial decision. The core constitutional question—whether the judiciary can halt an impeachment initiated by the House, which the Constitution calls an “exclusive power”—remains a live and explosive issue.

This maneuver offers a temporary victory and a much-needed reprieve for all sides of the political spectrum. For Vice President Duterte, the immediate effect is a significant political win. The halt in the proceedings allows her to consolidate her position, project an image of vindication, and focus on reinforcing her political base. With the 2028 presidential election cycle looming, being free from the distraction of an impeachment trial is an invaluable asset. Her camp’s triumphant messaging is not just rhetoric; it’s the opening salvo in rebranding this chapter as a failed political attack she successfully weathered.

For the impeachment proponents, like ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. France Castro, who called the development a “dark day for accountability,” the Senate vote was a bitter pill. Yet, it provides a glimmer of hope where a dismissal would have offered none. Their fight is not over. Their legal challenge at the Supreme Court is now their primary—and perhaps final—venue to argue that the integrity of the impeachment process as the ultimate accountability tool has been compromised. While a reversal from the Supreme Court is a steep uphill climb, the door remains open.

The Senate, meanwhile, masterfully navigated a political minefield. By choosing to archive, its leadership avoided both a constitutional crisis that would have resulted from defying the Supreme Court and a direct political war with the powerful blocs in the House of Representatives. It was a move of institutional self-preservation, allowing the Senate to uphold its deference to the judiciary while not completely shutting the door on the House’s prerogatives.

The Filipino public is left to watch this high-stakes match, where the core issue—the Vice President’s use of confidential funds—has been overshadowed by complex constitutional questions. While the immediate political drama in the Senate has concluded, the fundamental battle over power, checks and balances, and public accountability is far from settled. The case against Sara Duterte is not dead and buried; it is merely in hibernation, awaiting the next, and perhaps most critical, move from the Supreme Court.