The petition for certiorari filed the other day by Vice President Sara Duterte may be seen as a desperate move to survive what is perhaps her toughest political battle. However, it may also be her best way to prevent the Senate from constituting itself as an impeachment court and possibly convicting her.

Contrary to the opinions of some pundits, the petition is actually a justiciable controversy that the Court can take cognizance of and appropriately dispose of. It is not a political question, as some argue, since it involves the one-year bar rule.

A political question, incidentally, refers to “those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature or executive branch of the government.”

As regards Congress, it includes internal rules and regulations, which the Court, as a general rule, cannot interfere with. However, under the expanded jurisdiction of the judiciary, even those rules that are intramural in character may be subject to judicial inquiry if they touch on a constitutional issue, which in this case pertains to the alleged initiation of multiple impeachment complaints in a given year.

So clearly, there is hands down no debate here regarding the Court’s jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, whether or not the petition should prosper is another story. Under the Constitution, an impeachment proceeding can only be initiated once a year. According to jurisprudence, initiation occurs only upon the filing of the complaint and referral to the Committee on Justice. This means it is possible to have several impeachment complaints filed in a given year, but as long as there is no referral yet, there is no prohibition. If there is, then there could be a violation if a subsequent complaint is entertained after said referral.

At any rate, in another celebrated case, two impeachment complaints were filed separately but simultaneously referred to the proper committee. Based on the Court’s decision, such simultaneous referral is not a violation. It would be different if one was filed after the other.

In the case of the Vice President, her lawyers alleged that three complaints were actually filed in the House, but Secretary General Velasco, instead of transmitting them to the Speaker so he could calendar and refer them to the proper committee, decided to hold them in abeyance because Congress reportedly could not secure the right number at that time. So, he waited for a fourth complaint, and when he allegedly determined that the minimum number was finally obtained, that’s when he decided to transmit.

Now, under House rules, the Secretary General must “immediately” refer the verified impeachment complaint to the Speaker, who shall include it in the order of business in the plenary within 10 session days, as provided for in the Constitution.

If Velasco deliberately delayed the transmission, it is another form of circumvention of the one-year bar rule since, had he immediately forwarded the previous three complaints, the filing and referral of the fourth would have been a violation.

Interestingly, the word “immediately” only appears in the House rules. Be that as it may, it is not a political question because, as stated earlier, it relates to a constitutional provision that governs impeachment.

How exciting!