Interpellation of Senate Minority Leader Vicente C. Sotto III on the Motion to Dismiss the Impeachment Case vs. Vice President Duterte

Interpellation of Senate Minority Leader Vicente C. Sotto III on the Motion to Dismiss the Impeachment Case vs. Vice President Duterte
August 6, 2025

1. May I know the basis for this motion to dismiss? The Supreme Court's decision is now pending appeal by virtue of the Motion for Reconsideration filed last Monday by the House of Representatives? (response)

This Supreme Court decision, although immediately executory, is not yet final, thus appealable. Ngayon na naka apela na, bakit tayo nagmamadali mag dismiss?

2. May I ask the gentleman what will happen if we PREMATURELY dismiss this case and the Supreme Court subsequently grants the MR and reverse its own decision? (response)

Just to remind everyone, the reversal of the Supreme Court's own decision is not impossible, even in landmark cases. In the case of La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association Inc. vs. Victor Ramos G.R. No. 127882 December 1, 2004, questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act 7942 or the Philippine Mining Law, the Supreme Court granted the MR reversing and setting aside its earlier ruling. Also, just a few days ago, the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling on the definition of a "stockholder". This is the case of Lily Lopez vs. Lolito Lopez with G.R. Nos. 254957-58.

May kasabihan nga tayo, "Ang tumakbo ng matulin, kung matinik ay malalim". Kaya dapat pag-isipan muna ng tama, bago basta basta ibasura ang kaso na ito.

3. I am certain that the gentleman read the 97 pages ruling of the Supreme Court to come up with this motion. Do you agree with the statement in page 3 and page 56 as basis that the one-year ban has set in?

For the benefit of my colleagues, the last paragraph of page 3 states that "since the 19th Congress terminated, the three impeachment complaints became unacted upon."

This was reiterated in page 56 second paragraph of roman numeral V. It says, "The House of Representatives, however, was unable to act on the first three impeachment complaints because of the adjournment of the 19th Congress. xxx For constitutional purposes, the first three complaints were effectively dismissed."

I.

ADJOURNMENT VS. ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE

In both instances, the Supreme Court was referring to the February 5, 2025 adjournment. But they've erroneously believed that the said adjournment is the same with a sine die adjournment that ends a congress.

February 5 did not terminate the 19th Congress as stated in the decision. The sine die adjournment of the 19th Congress was on June 14, 2025 wherein the last session day was last June 11.

There is a world of difference between adjournment vs. a sine die adjournment. This is a transcendental case, ang laking constitutional issue nito, wala man lang oral arguments or at the very least a consultation with someone from Congress regarding the procedure. In that manner, they wouldn't have decided based on their unfamiliarity with the legislative process! Pati ba legislative rules natin pinalitan na rin nila?

Maybe not everyone can appreciate the importance of the legislative calendar of the Congress. But it is a big deal that's why I am stressing this point. Concurrent joint resolution pa when we approve this calendar, only to be misinterpreted and used erroneously in this case.

In addition to this factual error, it can be seen in the website of the House of Representatives that the three impeachment complaints were referred to the Committee on Rules and were consigned to the archives on February 6 not on February 5 as claimed in page 78 of the decision.

This archiving were not the results of the ending of the 19th congress but because of the fact that the 4th complaint were already filed and transmitted to the Senate. Dito pa lang, pilit na pilit nang patunayan na barred na ang 4th complaint.

II.

Amending the Constitution and Retroactively Applying to the Case

The Supreme Court essentially amended the Constitution by removing the third mode of filing of impeachment complaint. This third and speedy mode was enshrined there for a reason. In times that there is an urgent need to impeach a person, who is influential and powerful, and may use such position to evade the law, the third mode, which is the fastest way, is provided for by the constitution.

If the Supreme Court is now changing the meaning of "initiating" then at the very least apply it prospectively. However, they are applying this new ruling retroactively which is a violation of the Doctrine of Operative Facts.

Kung ganito ang kanilang kagustuhan, apektado din nito ang mga nakaraang impeachment proceedings. In the words of retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, "the said Supreme Court decision practically voided the impeachment proceedings against former President Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona."

Pag gusto talaga may paraan, pag ayaw may dahilan. Pero wag naman sama pati sa mga ganitong bagay that will ultimately affect future impeachment and legislative rules and proceedings.

I've read that the basis for the retroactive application of the new definition is because the Senate has not acquired jurisdiction yet. Anong tawag mo dun sa pag constitute as an impeachment court? Nag robe pa sila and even sent out summons. Ano yun moro-moro lang?

III.

INCOHERENCE OF THE SC DECISION

Just an observation, Mr. President. Well, not only me but several lawyers mentioned this to me, including my godson and former Senate President Aquilino Koko Pimentel. Naguluhan sila sa pagkakasulat ng decision. It is incoherent and some parts are off-topic. Para bang pinagtagpi-tagpi. It even quoted the entire Article XI of the Constitution twice! It seems na there were two ponentes maybe? Well, it's just my personal observation.

IV.

Let the Supreme Court Rectify its Ruling

The personalities in this present impeachment case is of no moment. What I am pointing out is the danger of outright dismissing the impeachment proceedings by virtue of a decision that not yet final and pending appeal.

Justice Leonen himself said that " The Supreme Court is not perfect.. citizens and academics certainly have the right to call attention to the fallibility of the courts."

Tama po iyon, there is no perfect institution, even Supreme Court ka, pwedeng mag commit ng grave abuse of discretion or culpable violation of the Constitution. A case decided unanimously does not mean that it is infallible. For all we know, it is a unanimous mistake, that again can be corrected by setting aside and reversing prior pronouncements.

Again, the House of Representatives, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has filed their Motion for Reconsideration last Monday, August 4, 2025, within the period set forth by law to appeal. In this regard, we shall wait for the resolution of this MR. Let us allow and give chance to the Supreme court to rectify its decision, which contains clear and blatant errors, for their sake and for future impeachment proceedings. Let us NOT dismiss forthwith!

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.