Carpio, Monsod slam SC ruling on Sara impeachment complaint

Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and former 1986 Constitutional Commission member and Comelec Chair Christian Monsod on Wednesday scored the recent ruling of the Supreme Court junking the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte and urged the high bench to reconsider what they described as a “factual and legal error.”

Carpio and Monsod said the high court overstepped its authority and misread the Constitution when it voided the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte, ruling it as unconstitutional and in violation of the one-year bar rule.

A convenor of the opposition coalition 1Sambayan, Carpio stressed that the House of Representatives had in fact voted to approve and transmit the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate on 5 February — a critical detail allegedly ignored by the Court.

“There was a motion in the plenary, there was no objection, and more than one-third — 215 lawmakers — voted for the transmission. It’s in the House journal,” he said. “The Court relied on a news report instead of the official record.”

For his part, Monsod said the SC not only misapplied the one-year bar rule but also imposed retroactively new requirements that were never part of past impeachment precedents — such as requiring a plenary hearing before referral to the Committee on Justice. “It violates due process,” Monsod said. “You cannot comply with a rule that didn’t exist at the time of the act. That’s basic.”

The two legal luminaries agreed that the ruling undermined the constitutional intent to liberalize the impeachment process — a principle Monsod himself had championed as one of the authors of the 1987 Constitution.

Carpio warned, “The impeachment process is a political act meant to hold the highest officials accountable. The Court’s new doctrines will make it nearly impossible to file such complaints within the required time,” citing tight procedural deadlines that conflict with the Supreme Court's newly imposed standards.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, also held that the Vice President should have been given an opportunity to be heard at the plenary level — a move Carpio said contradicts the practice of referring complaints to the Committee on Justice without preliminary hearings.

Carpio added that the Court should not have applied its new doctrine retroactively and suggested that “at best, it should be made prospective.”

Asked whether the Supreme Court ruling effectively kills the complaint against Duterte, Carpio said, “No. It simply delays it.” He noted that under the Court’s own decision, the House may refile the complaint beginning 6 February 2026.

Meanwhile, Monsod called on the 20th Congress to uphold public accountability and warned against underestimating the people. “Sovereignty resides in the people. Public officials must always be accountable — whether through impeachment, election, or even cases before the Ombudsman,” he said.

The two urged the House to file a motion for reconsideration, noting that a reversal, even of a unanimous 13-0 decision, is possible. They also emphasized the importance of public vigilance, hinting at deeper concerns about politicization in the judiciary.

Monsod, citing a 2023 Cambridge study, said justices appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte had voted in favor of government positions 94 percent of the time. “There is growing concern that our institutions are being weakened,” he said.

As of Wednesday, the House has yet to file its motion for reconsideration, while Senate leaders have indicated they would await finality before acting on the impeachment complaint.

In the event the Supreme Court denies the MR, Carpio said, “we wait six months and refile.”