[Rappler Investigates] Coming soon — 20th Congress and Sara’s trial

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Will the new Senate sitting as an impeachment court proceed with newly elected senator-judges, and will the new House of Representatives signify its intent to pursue the trial?

Eleven days from today, the 20th Congress will convene to listen to the fourth State of the Nation Address of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Mark your calendars: July 28, a Monday.

The 19th Congress, if you recall, adjourned sine die on June 12, leaving a trail of unanswered questions about the fate of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Will the new Senate sitting as an impeachment court proceed with newly elected senator-judges, and will the new House of Representatives signify its intent to pursue the trial? A concomitant question is whether or not Senate President Chiz Escudero will keep his post after all the maneuverings he allowed to happen that, in turn, resulted in the impeachment trial not starting “forthwith.”

Remember, too, that Sara Duterte had filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to block her trial. This is separate from the petition filed by Mindanao lawyers who cited constitutional infirmities.

Nine days ago, on July 8, the High Court en banc consolidated the two petitions and directed both the Senate and the House to comment and provide information that the SC needed. Justice reporter Jairo Bolledo dissects the SC’s requirements here.

In brief, the Supreme Court raises questions about the status of the first three complaints filed by private citizens and when exactly they were endorsed by a member of the House. These complaints were filed within a three-week period in December 2024. In addition, the High Tribunal also raises questions about the transmittal of these complaints. 

Among others, it appears that the SC is trying to discern whether or not there was anything irregular in the decision of House Secretary General Reginald Velasco to sit on the verified impeachment complaints instead of immediately referring them to Speaker Martin Romualdez (House rules say they should be included by the Speaker in the order of business within 10 session days then referred to the justice committee within three days after). 

Defense for this? Recall that the 1987 Constitution prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings “against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” If complaints were immediately referred to the Speaker, what would stop lawmakers or citizens from abusing the one-year-bar rule through insidious and dubious attempts to file flimsy complaints just to protect an impeachable official? Furthermore, the House has said that no violation occurred because the first three complaints had not yet been referred to the justice committee and therefore had not yet triggered any initiation of impeachment proceedings.

The House tarried and appeared to wait for the fourth complaint that eventually garnered support from more than two-thirds of the House (215 out of 306 lawmakers), and which then merited direct transmission to the Senate, bypassing the justice committee. Sara argues that this fourth complaint (filed in February 2025) already violates the Constitution’s one-year-bar provision.

Will the SC accept the explanation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) or will it find more merit in Sara Duterte’s petition? It’s often said that impeachment is a highly political exercise and even the Supreme Court is not immune from politics. Of course, the OSG has also argued that this exercise is beyond the purview of the High Court.

Whatever the outcome, we can only hope that sound and convincing arguments will emanate from the SC. It is during times of chaos and severe fragmentation that sobriety and clarity of thought are most needed.

Remember Royina Garma?

Over in Cebu, reporter John Sitchon investigated a property in a protected area allegedly owned by Royina Garma, an ex-cop linked to the Davao Death Squad and former president Rodrigo Duterte. 

Believed to be seeking political asylum in the US, Garma just went under the radar after her congressional appearances — one of them had her confirming damaging information that drug war killings were rewarded by the former president himself. 

How will this drama unfold and eventually intersect with Duterte in The Hague? Let’s watch and see.

Till Thursday after next! Thank you to those who responded to my email; happy to hear from you and get your feedback!

---

– Rappler.com