5 hours ago
3
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
MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte will begin in the next Congress as the current Senate has decided to convene as an impeachment court no earlier than July 29, the opening of the 20th Congress.
This was confirmed by lawyer Reginald Tongol, designated spokesman for the Senate in the impeachment trial of Duterte, in an interview with “Storycon” on One News last night.
He said Senate President Francis Escudero, the presiding officer of the court, “is actually targeting convening on July 29.”
Escudero said at an earlier press briefing that the schedule of the impeachment trial would be up to the 20th Congress.
Although winners in the midterm elections will assume office on June 30, the 20th Congress will only formally open in the morning of July 28. Leadership changes may happen as lawmakers are expected to vote on who will occupy key posts.
President Marcos will then address both chambers in his fourth State of the Nation Address at the Batasang Pambansa in the afternoon. Official business in both chambers may then be tackled the following day.
“There is still a second compliance that the impeachment court is waiting for from the House of Representatives,” Tongol said.
He was referring to the impeachment court’s directive for the next House of Representatives to issue a certification that it is willing to pursue Duterte’s prosecution.
The first order, which the House already submitted to the impeachment court, sought confirmation that the filing of the Articles of Impeachment complied with constitutional requirements.
Tongol also maintained that senator-judges did not “throw back” the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte to the House of Representatives.
While the word “remand” was in the motion previously approved by the impeachment court, he said later deliberations among the senator-judges clarified their intent.
“In order for the proceedings to be shortened, it was conceded among the senator-judges to not anymore use the word ‘remand,’ but to make it ‘return’ or ‘refer back,’” he said.
“The intention of the impeachment court through the deliberations is to get the compliances from the House of Representatives and not to actually throw back the actual Articles of Impeachment,” he added.
Citing the senator-judges’ decision to return the Articles of Impeachment to the House prosecutors, Duterte – through her lawyers – questioned the validity of the summons issued to her by the court.
And while it is her right to raise such issues, Tongol expressed belief that the senator-judges would stand by their position.
“It is just a constructive referral back… because the actual Articles of Impeachment have already been recognized by the impeachment court as being in the jurisdiction already of the impeachment court. That’s why the summons were sent,” he said in a mix of English and Filipino.
In a two-page submission to the Senate, House prosecutors certified that members of the chamber did not violate the one-year ban on impeachment, asserting that it “fully complied” with all legal and constitutional requirements, particularly Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the House of Representatives.
Duterte’s lawyers are contesting before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint, citing the House’s alleged violation of a constitutional provision that prohibits more than one impeachment complaint to be initiated against an impeachable official.
Duterte, meanwhile, announced the appointment of lawyer Michael Poa as spokesman for her impeachment case.
House certification
In their submission, House prosecutors included details of the first three impeachment complaints to show they did not break the one-year limit.
In the same submission, the House also stressed that certification should not be taken as a signal that it agrees with the Senate’s June 11 vote to return the Articles to the House.
“This submission is without waiver of the Prosecution’s position that there is no legal basis for the return of the Articles of Impeachment forwarded to the Senate in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, which enjoys a presumption of legality and constitutionality, consistent with the Resolution of the Honorable Court dated Jan. 18, 2012, in the matter of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Case No. 002-2011 (Annex B) passing upon the same matters,” the submission read.
Apart from the certification, the House also filed a manifestation resubmitting its prosecutors’ entry of appearance in light of the appearance ad cautelam of the Vice President’s legal team last week.
“In contrast to the Appearance Ad Cautelam dated 16 June 2025 filed by the counsels for the Respondent, Sara Zimmerman Duterte, there is no reservation, limitation or other qualification of any kind on the part of the undersigned public prosecutors,” the manifestation read.
House prosecutors would only be able to file the second certification once the 20th Congress opens session on July 28.
Escudero, at his briefing, denied that the court gave Duterte legal arsenal by returning the case to the House for the latter’s certification that it was compliant with the 1987 Constitution on initiating impeachment.
“I refer you back to the order itself. Please read the order, where it is stated there that the case is returned without dismissing or terminating the case,” Escudero said.
Escudero was asked about the court’s jurisdiction because the Vice President – in a 35-page Answer Ad Cautelam she filed with the court on Monday – said there was no impeachment complaint to respond to because of the Senate’s order to remand the case.
He said Duterte already presented the same argument in her petition for certiorari she earlier filed before the Supreme Court.
“It is not for me to comment about the Vice President’s Answer, which we as a court will accept as her answer to the summons issued by the impeachment court. It is not for me to comment if it was correct or not,” Escudero said.
Let court decide
On Duterte’s move to have her impeachment case dismissed due to the alleged violation of the one-year prohibition rule, Escudero said it is up to the impeachment court to decide on it based on any party’s motion when it resumes session July 29 during the 20th Congress.
He maintained that there are no Senate rules which prohibit senator-judges from making a motion subject to a majority vote in the impeachment court.
“That is my problem with the critics. There is no rule prohibiting any motion. You can’t stop anybody from making a motion, because the Senate as an impeachment court is a collegial body,” Escudero said.
Meanwhile, former Bayan Muna congressman Neri Colmenares has scored efforts by the Duterte camp to have her impeachment case junked and her trial stopped, saying an outright dismissal “will defeat the only remaining accountability mechanism against impeachable officials.”
In a statement, Colmenares said Article XI of the Constitution “obligates the Senate to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”
“It will also deprive the people and taxpayers of the answer to their question as to where public funds in the custody of VP Duterte went and whether the recipients of these funds like Mary Grace Piattos actually exist,” he added.
He also said Duterte’s legal arguments in challenging her impeachment “are without constitutional and legal basis.”
Colmenares also disputed Duterte’s claims that the submission of the Articles of Impeachment is “void ab initio” for violating the rule on one-year ban rule under the Constitution.
“There is only but one impeachment proceeding pending before the Senate and it is surprising for VP Duterte to claim that more than one impeachment proceeding has been initiated,” Colmenares said. – Neil Jayson Servallos, Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Jose Rodel Clapano, Bella Cariaso
