Will the Supreme Court save its credibility?

By Herbert Vego

IT’S not impossible. We heard this opinion from lawyers who believe that the Supreme Court (SC) may reverse its controversial ruling declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte “unconstitutional”.

The SC, they say, might have wrongly interpreted Article XI, Section 3 (4) of the Constitution: “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.”

In its motion for reconsideration House (MR) filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the House pleaded for reversal of the July 25, 2025 ruling because it has the exclusive constitutional duty to initiate and prosecute impeachment cases before the Senate convened as the impeachment court; while the Senate is mandated to try and either convict or acquit the impeached Vice President.

Hence, the Senate erred in archiving the impeachment complaint out of “respect” to the SC, even while vowing to change its stand should the latter reverse its ruling.

It goes without saying that all’s well that would end well should the SC agree to reverse itself due its own factual errors. Otherwise, the SC and the Senate could be construed as “partners” in a “cover-up”.

It would be a bad precedent for discussion in law schools.

A good indicator of a likely reversal is the fact that the Court has ordered forthwith VP Sara and her lawyers to comment on the motion for reconsideration (MR) within 10 days, counting from August 5.

The House had raised several factual and legal errors to justify its appeal for the reversal of the Court’s decision, such as the due process requirement.

The “due process” would have to proceed from the impeachment trial by the Senate/impeachment court, which is mandated to ensure that impeachable officials answer to the people.

It’s a fact that on February 5, 2025, the House validly transmitted to the Senate a verified impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte.

The MR challenged the SC interpretation of the one-year bar rule on the filing of multiple impeachments, insisting that it was only one impeachment complaint, signed by 215 or more than one-third of the congressmen, that was initiated and transmitted to the Senate. The three others had been set aside.

To recall, VP Duterte initially responded “willing” to face the charges to the extent of a “bloodbath”.

The SC decision misquoted ABS-CBN news, alleging that the House of Representatives had transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate without a plenary vote.

“Wrong,” the network corrected the Court’s observation about ABS-CBN reporting that the House of Representatives had transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate without a plenary vote.

What ABS-CBN reported was that the impeachment complaint had been approved by the Senate plenary.

In a radio interview, former Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel wailed that the 97-page decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, did not tackle the merits of the impeachment complaint which held VP Sara accountable for allegations of corruption and, among others, the threat to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez.

ML Partylist Representative Leila de Lima, on the other hand, said that the violations of the Constitution were committed by the Senate impeachment court and the Supreme Court.

“If this was truly about deference to the Supreme Court, De Lima said,” the Senate could have simply suspended proceedings temporarily until the motions for reconsideration are resolved to give the Supreme Court. What we witnessed from the Senate is the moving of heaven and earth to render extraordinary protection to the Vice President.”.

Pimentel and De Lima are in agreement with the group of 1Sambayan — composed of retired justices, legal luminaries, clergymen and pro-democratic groups– which has filed a petition before the SC seeking to intervene and reconsider its controversial ruling.

Hence, the proceedings should continue the moment the Supreme Court rules in favor of the House’s motion for reconsideration, if only to abort a brewing Constitutional crisis.

-oOo-

MORE POWER APOLOGIZES ON POLE ACCIDENT

IN the afternoon (around 3:00 PM) of August 8, a MORE Power contractor was installing a distribution transformer at the Iloilo Terminal Market when one of the poles fell down.

Two establishments sustained damage, and transformer oil accidentally spilled onto a vendor. The transformer oil, fortunately, is not toxic.

The management of MORE Power is deeply saddened by this incident and apologizes to those affected.

MORE Power promised to provide full assistance, including financial support for the repair of the damaged establishments and complete medical attention for the vendor.

As a precaution, the company has suspended the contractor while conducting a thorough investigation and safety assessment to prevent similar incidents from happening again.