The Senate majority bloc’s reported plan to withhold convening as an impeachment court in adherence to the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling blocking Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial shouldn’t be carried out impulsively until the House of Representatives has filed an appeal for a reversal, Senator Loren Legarda asserted Sunday. 

Brushing off Senate Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada’s assertions that a trial is no longer necessary when no less than the SC itself has spoken that pushing through is unconstitutional, Legarda reminded her colleagues that the Senate, before the end of the 19th Congress, had pledged to reconvene as an impeachment court to continue the proceeding.

“We should not decide prematurely until the House of Representatives has exhausted all legal remedies,” Legarda said in an interview. “Due process must be observed regardless of where we stand on the issue in the pursuit of accountability, justice, truth, and fairness.”

Her remarks came on the heels of Estrada’s announcement that “19 to 20” senators would likely abide by the SC’s decision that the chamber had no jurisdiction over the impeachment case since it was void ab initio (from the beginning).  The Senate has only 24 senators, and the figures disclosed by Estrada represent the majority bloc. 

Legarda, among the five-member minority bloc, however, argued that the Senate must “let the process take its course” and wait for the SC's decision on the House’s filing of a motion for reconsideration before closing the plenary for the trial. 

The House, which initiated the impeachment and named a respondent to the SC, has until this week to file a motion. 

Seemingly discouraged, House Deputy Speaker Janette Garin on Sunday countered that regardless of whatever legal remedies are to be taken by the House, it’s improbable that the Senate will proceed with the trial, saying its “plan is already finalized.”

“Impeachment is all about accountability, but accountability can be masked by legal impediments,” Garin said. 

Nevertheless, the House leader disclosed that the fight for the impeachment is still far from over, saying there have been ongoing talks in the House minority, which comprised legal luminaries, such as Reps. Chel Diokno and Leila de Lima, to insist on holding a trial even if it would mean defying the SC’s order. 

Earlier, Estrada said that even the Senate, which has the sole power to try and decide on impeachment cases, is “not above the law” and thereby compelled to abide by the ruling of the highest court. 

‘Senate making shortcut’

House spokesperson Princess Abante, on the contrary, warned that the Senate risks disregarding due process if it abandons the impeachment trial without allowing the SC to hear the House’s motion.

“Worse, it may be construed as a political shortcut that undermines the constitutional role of the House,” Abante said on Saturday.

In addition, she reminded senators to exercise prudence and patience, and to allow the judicial process to reach its rightful conclusion, emphasizing that the SC’s decision is not yet final and executory. 

The SC’s unanimous decision effectively put a stop to Duterte’s trial in the Senate, supposedly set for today, Monday.

‘Unconstitutional’

The high court cited a violation of Duterte’s right to due process and Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 — which prohibits the filing of more than one impeachment case against the same official within a one-year period — as grounds to declare the case unconstitutional, null, and void ab initio (from the beginning).

To recall, Duterte was slapped with three impeachment complaints in barely two weeks in December last year, but was only officially impeached on 5 February after the fourth complaint was signed and endorsed by 215 members of the House. 

The votes overwhelmingly surpassed the one-third threshold to bypass committee hearings and be transmitted directly to the Senate for trial—a shortcut route allowed by the Constitution—and constituted the articles of impeachment.

The ruling states, however, that Duterte was deprived of due process when the articles of impeachment immediately advanced to the Senate without allowing her to counter the allegations.

Moreover, the SC ruled that the articles were barred, citing the House’s alleged inaction on the first three complaints when the 19th Congress ended, which deemed the complaints “effectively terminated and dismissed, to which the one-year bar was reckoned.

Charter framers, former SC associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, and Atty. Rene Sarmiento echoed the House's position that the one-year bar was not violated since the articles were not referred to the justice committee. 

Citing Francisco v. House of Representatives — a ruling handed down by the SC itself — Azcuna and Sarmiento said an impeachment proceeding is only deemed initiated after the verified complaint has been referred to the justice panel tasked to determine whether the same is sufficient in form and substance.

The House is expected to file a motion for reconsideration of the SC's verdict this week. Meanwhile, senators in the minority bloc have also revealed plans to file a resolution to carry on with Duterte's trial, citing the separation of powers of the legislative branch from the judiciary.

Duterte was the first second-highest official impeached by the House on grounds of graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other high crimes. The fourth complaint outlines seven articles of impeachment.