Senators ruled on Friday, July 25, that the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte should continue even after the Supreme Court (SC) deemed the case as ‘unconstitutional.’
Senator Joel Villanueva pointed out that the impeachment court is “sui generis,” a legal term justifying the uniqueness and independent operations of the impeachment court over regular courts.
“Whether the Supreme Court made that decision or not, the impeachment court will proceed. We’ll proceed,” Villanueva said.
He added that all questions as well as the SC’s decision will be discussed during the trial’s continuation.
He likened the decision to the Former Chief Justice Renato Corona’s case where the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, which the Senate ignored after voting to do so.
“So there is a precedent … it’s still the impeachment court’s decision,” he said.
After being told by a legal luminary, Sen. Vicente Sotto III stated that the Senate impeachment court could disregard the SC’s decision.
“I was just told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision. Let me study that advice,” he remarked.
Additionally, Sen. Bam Aquino expressed his perspectives that the trial should still proceed amid SC’s ruling and called for a caucus to discuss the decision and the Senate's constitutional mandate.
“As a co-equal branch, the Senate’s constitutional mandate and authority are clear, so the impeachment process should be respected,” said Aquino.
However, Sen. Risa Hontiveros expressed her confusion about the “one-year bar rule” violation on impeachment complaint that was noted by the SC as unconstitutional.
“One thing we find puzzling is how the “one-year bar rule” was violated when only a single case was filed with the Senate,” she said.
Senator Joel Villanueva pointed out that the impeachment court is “sui generis,” a legal term justifying the uniqueness and independent operations of the impeachment court over regular courts.
“Whether the Supreme Court made that decision or not, the impeachment court will proceed. We’ll proceed,” Villanueva said.
He added that all questions as well as the SC’s decision will be discussed during the trial’s continuation.
He likened the decision to the Former Chief Justice Renato Corona’s case where the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, which the Senate ignored after voting to do so.
“So there is a precedent … it’s still the impeachment court’s decision,” he said.
After being told by a legal luminary, Sen. Vicente Sotto III stated that the Senate impeachment court could disregard the SC’s decision.
“I was just told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision. Let me study that advice,” he remarked.
Additionally, Sen. Bam Aquino expressed his perspectives that the trial should still proceed amid SC’s ruling and called for a caucus to discuss the decision and the Senate's constitutional mandate.
“As a co-equal branch, the Senate’s constitutional mandate and authority are clear, so the impeachment process should be respected,” said Aquino.
However, Sen. Risa Hontiveros expressed her confusion about the “one-year bar rule” violation on impeachment complaint that was noted by the SC as unconstitutional.
“One thing we find puzzling is how the “one-year bar rule” was violated when only a single case was filed with the Senate,” she said.
Written by Nawaf M. Abdullah Salam, Insight PH
Nawaf M. Abdullah Salam, Insight PH is a dedicated campus journalist and contributor. Their insightful writing sparks meaningful conversations and keeps the community informed.
