The Supreme Court in an en banc session. - File photo from TETCH TORRES / INQUIRER.net
MANILA: Impeaching any high-ranking official may be almost impossible if the Supreme Court (SC) does not revise its decision on Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said on Thursday (July 31).
Ridon, in an ambush interview at the Batasang Pambansa complex, explained that with the SC decision, an impeachable official can just ask a friend in the House of Representatives to file a weak impeachment case against him or her, and this will automatically kick in the one-year prohibition period on impeachment proceedings.
On July 25, SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the Articles of Impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate was deemed unconstitutional by the high tribunal for violating the 1987 Constitution’s one-year ban rule.
“I think this sentiment was played out in the last couple of days – the actual objections of lawyers, lawyers’ groups, people’s organisations and our esteemed luminaries – about the effects of this particular decision, and I will reiterate it today. If the Supreme Court stands on this decision and it does not reconsider the ruling, nobody in the Philippines would be impeached,” Ridon, a lawyer by profession, told reporters.
“Because any high-ranking official — a president, vice president, Supreme Court justice – if they have a friend who is a House member, they will endorse a complaint, ask them to file a complaint against me. Whether or not the House addresses that, the one year ban period starts,” he added.
According to Ridon, it is an “unfortunate situation which we hope that the Supreme Court will reconsider.”
On February 5, Duterte was impeached after 215 House lawmakers from the 19th Congress filed and signed a fourth complaint, which was hinged on allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices, threats to ranking officials, and other possible violations of the Constitution.
The Articles of Impeachment were immediately forwarded to the Senate on the same day, as the 1987 Constitution requires a trial to start forthwith if at least one-third of all House members — or just 102 out of 306 — have signed and endorsed the petition.
In February, two petitions seeking to stop the impeachment complaints were filed before the SC.
The first was from Mindanao-based lawyers who claimed that the House did not observe the Constitution’s rules, which require it to act on filed impeachment complaints within 10 session days.
The first impeachment complaint was filed in December 2024 and was only referred to the House committee on rules on February 5.
The House, however, asserted in its reply to the SC that all the impeachment complaints were addressed within 10 session days, noting that the term “session days” should not be mistaken with “calendar days” or “working days.”
In its explanation, the House presented a table showing when the sessions were held. The day that the first complaint was submitted to House Secretary General Reginald Velasco’s office, December 2, was the 26th Session Day of the 19th Congress’ Third Regular Session.
On the other hand, the three impeachment complaints were forwarded by Velasco to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez on February 5, and these were brought to the plenary on the same day — which was the 36th Session day of the Third Regular Session.
The House believes this means it took exactly 10 session days before the first complaint was transmitted.
While the Articles of Impeachment were deemed unconstitutional, SC clarified that it does not absolve the vice president, adding that the next impeachment complaint can be filed against the vice president by February 6, 2026.
The House is expected to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC’s decision regarding the impeachment.
The Senate, on the other hand, is scheduled to tackle the matter on Wednesday (Aug 6). - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
