SC decision clears way for Sara Duterte trial to move forward

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian says the dismissal of the petitions clears the way for Duterte’s trial to proceed

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of petitions challenging the Senate impeachment court’s voting rules clears a legal hurdle, putting the focus back on Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial, which now moves forward under a basis that allows the number of votes needed for conviction to adjust based on which senator-judges can participate.

The SC, sitting en banc, unanimously junked the three petitions for lacking locus standi, or legal standing, and for being premature, as the trial had not yet reached a final judgment.

The petitions were separately filed by former Marcos administration executive secretary Victor Rodriguez, disbarred lawyer Berteni Causing, and constitutional lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr. They also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the ruling while the High Court resolves their petitions.

Rodriguez, now a Duterte ally, had argued that the impeachment court effectively amended the Constitution by adding a qualification not found in its text. Causing and Francisco, for their part, said senators who remain in office should be counted even if they are in hiding, detained, or medically unable to attend the impeachment proceedings.

The High Court, however, junked the petitions on procedural grounds.

“The SC dismissed the separate petitions filed by Victor D. Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluña Causing, and Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., challenging the Senate Impeachment Court’s interpretation of the two-thirds vote required to convict in an impeachment case,” the Court said. 

What does the dismissal mean?

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said the dismissal of the petitions means the Senate impeachment court could proceed and move forward with the Duterte trial. He said this also indicates the impeachment court is operating “within its bounds and within its constitutional allowance.”

“Two petitions were filed — one was [for] a TRO, and the other was a prayer for status quo ante order. Both were dismissed by the SC, so that means the trial will continue… This also goes to show that the High Court respects the rulings of the impeachment court,” said Gatchalian. 

Constitutional lawyer and former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa said the petitions may still be re-filed, but stressed that it cannot undo the decision of the impeachment court, which are final and executory. 

He said the swift resolution of the petitions sends a message that the High Court “seemingly leaves it to the Senate impeachment court as the Constitution mandates that they are the sole judge” when it comes to impeachment cases. 

“Maybe it would best for the defense to present their evidence, cite the law, and hold on to senator-judges who may vote in favor of their case,” Cayosa told ANC’s Headstart.

Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution states the Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. Conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

Impeachment court decision

On September 23, the impeachment court revisited the basis for determining the number of votes needed for conviction, allowing only senator-judges who were “legally and factually capable” of participating in the proceedings at the time to cast their votes.

This reversed a July 6 ruling by the impeachment court’s presiding officer, Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero, which treated all 24 senators as the voting baseline. While maintaining the two-thirds threshold, the new ruling allowed the number of votes needed to convict Duterte to be adjusted based on the number of senator-judges legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings.

With 20 active senator-judges, two-thirds — or 14 votes — will be required  for her conviction. Seven votes, meanwhile,  are needed for her acquittal. – Rappler.com