18 hours ago
4
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
Jean Mangaluz - Philstar.com
July 26, 2025 | 12:08pm
MANILA, Philippines — After the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte was unconstitutional, it appeared that one of the Marcos administration’s most dramatic political sagas had come to an end.
Yet, some lawmakers remain open to continuing the process. This raises the question: Can the Senate proceed with the impeachment trial despite the SC decision?
This is a notion being considered by Sen. Tito Sotto.
“I was just told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision. Let me study that advice,” Sotto told the media.
Sotto has maintained that he submits to the Supreme Court’s wisdom. However, other senators, including Bam Aquino, Risa Hontiveros, and Kiko Pangilinan, have questioned the decision.
Two Constitution experts, meanwhile, offer differing perspectives.
Yes, the Senate could continue the trial but…
Lawyer Paolo Tamase, an assistant professor at the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, said it was a “factual possibility” for the trial to continue, as history shows that the Senate should reign supreme on impeachment matters.
“This decision changes that balance and seeks to insert the Court in the nitty gritty of the process, so I understand why there would be senators who prefer their institution to push back,” Tamase told Philstar.com.
However, the decision itself should serve as a caution for senators, as it sets new precedents for impeachment.
Duterte’s trial has already seen the introduction of several new rules, from the Senate’s move to return the articles of impeachment to the House to the Supreme Court’s issuance of new guidelines.
“We don’t know whether someone in the Senate will argue, for example, the application of double jeopardy and thus bar future impeachments,” Tamase said.
In the case of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment, the Supreme Court also intervened to some extent.
After issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the opening of then-Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dollar accounts, the Supreme Court left it to the Senate to decide whether to comply. Sitting as the impeachment court, the Senate eventually voted to honor the TRO to avoid a constitutional crisis, while allowing the trial to proceed.
Corona was ultimately convicted for failing to truthfully declare his assets, marking a historic moment that showed the tension between the judiciary and the legislative branch.
No, the Senate can't continue the trial
University of the Philippines constitutional law professor Dante Gatmaytan gave a firm “no” when asked if the Senate could continue with Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Gatmaytan told Philstar.com that the Supreme Court’s decision directed the issue back to the House of Representatives. He explained that, according to the ruling, the initial impeachment complaints were technically dismissed, which triggered the one-year ban on filing new cases.
A total of four impeachment complaints were lodged against Duterte, with only the final one being approved by the House. The high court argued that by failing to properly process the first three complaints, they were effectively dismissed.
“The Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. It cannot proceed with the trial. Its decision would be void,” Gatmaytan said.
However, he concurred with Tamase that the Supreme Court has laid down new requirements for impeachment—none of which are found in the Constitution.
In any case, it is unlikely that the Senate will proceed with the impeachment trial given the SC ruling. After all, the high court had questioned the House’s handling of the complaints from the outset.
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol said the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Upper Chamber’s decision to exercise restraint in handling Duterte’s trial.
“The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court,” he said.
