The Senate resolution urging the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its decision on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is gaining traction.

According to Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, who admitted initiating the move, at least four senators have signed the unnumbered resolution, including himself.

Other senators who have signified support for the resolution were Senators Risa Hontiveros and Bam Aquino, and Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III.

“Others we have spoken to are reviewing it,” Pangilinan told reporters in a text message.

Pangilinan said he had been in talks with senators since the fourth State of the Nation Address of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on 28 July about signing a Senate resolution he drafted with Hontiveros and Aquino.

“[T]o express its profound sense that the Supreme Court consider the application of the Fairness Principle and the Doctrine of Operative Facts in the context of the impeachment proceedings, to ensure that actions taken in reliance on previously established legal definitions are recognized as valid, and that any new interpretations are applied prospectively,” the resolution read.

Pangilinan, Hontiveros and Aquino earlier issued a joint statement opposing the SC decision halting the impeachment trial of the Vice President.

“After we had that statement, we brought it (resolution) to the attention of the majority in the caucus. But before that, I presented it during the SoNA to some of the other senators who said they would review it,” Pangilinan said in an earlier interview.

The resolution cited former SC Justice Adolf Azcuna’s concern regarding the application of legal principle on the High Court’s decision on Duterte’s impeachment case.

“Justice Azcuna highlights that while the 97-page decision in Vice President Duterte’s case may be legally correct, it strikes him as ‘grossly unfair’ because it rules the Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House of Representatives as violating the only one complaint within one year rule by crafting a new definition of what constitutes being ‘initiated’ and applying it to a complaint adopted in reliance on its previous and then prevailing definition,” the resolution read.

“[I]t is the Senate’s position that a reconsideration by the Supreme Court of its ruling would reconcile the constitutional provisions on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, the House of Representatives power to initiate impeachment complaints, and the Senate’s power to try and decide impeachment cases,” it added.

It continued: “This would ensure that all powers are given proper effect, consistent with the entrenched principle of constitutional construction established in Civil Liberties Union vs. the Executive Secretary, which states that one constitutional provision should not negate the other.”

The SC ruled that the non-referral of the first three impeachment complaints was an act of dismissal, so an impeachment based on the fourth complaint violated the one-year bar rule.

“The House was guided by the Francisco ruling, so that should be valid. And then for the future, if you want the new definition to apply, (it’s) for future cases,” Pangilinan said.