Sen. Rodante Marcoleta on Wednesday moved to dismiss the verified impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, citing constitutional violations and a Supreme Court ruling that rendered the complaint void.

During a plenary session, Marcoleta delivered a privilege speech asserting that the House of Representatives committed “several violations” in its filing of the articles of impeachment.

“Ang impeachment complaint po ay parang sinaing na niluto ng House of Representatives. Hilaw po eh! Hilaw na hilaw! (The impeachment complaint is like rice cooked by the House of Representatives. It’s undercooked! Completely undercooked!),” Marcoleta, who sits as deputy Senate Majority Leader, remarked.

Marcoleta said the Senate should not entertain a case the Supreme Court had already ruled unconstitutional.

“Mr. President, when the Supreme Court negates the actions of a co-equal branch of government, it does not assert its superiority. Instead, it upholds the supremacy and the dominance of the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution,” he stressed.

He added that the high court's decision was “immediately executory” and found the complaint to be “violative of due process,” asserting that the Senate “never acquired jurisdiction” over the case in the first place.

“Mr. President, the Supreme Court has already spoken. The last arbiter of law says the complaint is unconstitutional, is void ab initio, is violative of due process,” Marcoleta declared. “The Senate never acquired jurisdiction over this. It is immediately executory.”

Marcoleta clarified that the high court’s decision did not address the merits of the complaint against the Vice President.

Instead, it struck down the case on procedural grounds, particularly the House of Representatives’ failure to follow its own impeachment rules and its violation of the constitutional one-year ban on multiple impeachment complaints against the same official, he added.

“The rules were clear: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a year. Yet, four complaints were filed between December 2024 and February 2025,” Marcoleta said, noting that the House “failed to comply even with the most basic requirements.”

Errors in House procedures

Further, Marcoleta outlined “several procedural lapses” by the House of Representatives in handling the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, including the failure to promptly refer the first three complaints to the Speaker, and the simultaneous referral of all four complaints only on February 5, 2025, over two months after the first filing.

He also mentioned the misrepresentation of the inclusion in the official Order of Business of the House when they were merely listed in the journal’s “additional reference of business” section, and the submission of an invalid verification lacking the required sworn affidavit, which he argued was a technical flaw that rendered the complaint effectively unsigned.

“Kokopyahin na lang, hindi pa nakopya (It just had to be copied, and yet it still wasn’t copied properly),” Marcoleta said.

“This is an impeachment complaint. You are removing the second-highest official of the government. Yung lamang verification, sablay na po (Even just the verification was already a failure).”

Another point raised by Marcoleta was the lack of continuity between the 19th and 20th Congresses. He emphasized that the Senate never adopted or revived the impeachment proceedings from the previous Congress, which automatically lapsed at noon on 30 June 2025.

“There has been no action, no resolution, no motion to carry over the case into the 20th Congress,” he said.

Judicial respect

Citing an official statement from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Marcoleta reminded his colleagues that while dissent is vital in a democracy, outright defiance of the judiciary risks destabilizing democratic institutions.

“If every adverse ruling becomes an invitation to disobey,” he quoted, “the law ceases to be a constraint on power and becomes its casualty.”

Marcoleta moved for the Senate to dismiss the impeachment complaint, invoking the Supreme Court’s ruling as final and binding.

“And on that note, Mr. President, I respectfully move that the impeachment complaint be dismissed,” he said.

However, Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III objected to Marcoleta’s motion, urging his colleagues to await the outcome of the House’s motion for reconsideration filed before the Supreme Court.

“The decision is not yet final. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the House of Representatives just last Monday,” Sotto said during his interpellation. “Why are we rushing to dismiss the case?”

‘Premature’ to dismiss case

Sotto warned that dismissing the case prematurely could result in complications should the Supreme Court reverse its ruling.

“Just to remind everyone, the reversal of the Supreme Court’s own decision is not impossible, even in landmark cases,” he said, citing La Bugal-B’laan vs. Ramos and Lily Lopez vs. Lolito Lopez as examples.

He disputed the Court’s interpretation of adjournment, clarifying that “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 on June 11.”

“There is a world of difference between adjournment vs. a sine die adjournment,” Sotto added.

“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.”

Sotto also raised concerns that the Supreme Court is “essentially amending the Constitution” by removing the third mode of initiating impeachment complaints.

“If the Supreme Court is now changing the meaning of ‘initiating,’ then at the very least, it should be applied prospectively,” he continued.

Sotto then criticized the quality and coherence of the Supreme Court’s ruling that voided the impeachment complaint against Duterte.

He described the decision as disjointed and poorly written, saying it was “incoherent and some parts are off-topic,” even likening it to a patchwork of unrelated sections — “Para bang pinagtagpi-tagpi.” Sotto pointed out what he considered a glaring oversight: the full text of Article XI of the Constitution was quoted twice in the ruling, suggesting either carelessness or lack of editorial rigor.

Despite his criticism, Sotto stopped short of outright defiance and instead urged for institutional correction. He called on the high court to reconsider and revise its decision, citing “clear and blatant errors” that could negatively affect not only the current case but also future impeachment proceedings.

“Please, let us allow and give a chance to the Supreme Court to rectify its decision, which contains clear and blatant errors, for their sake and for the sake of future proceedings,” Sotto said.

“Let us not dismiss forthwith!,” he added.

Unmistakable injustice

Senator Risa Hontiveros also opposed the motion filed by Marcoleta seeking to dismiss ongoing impeachment proceedings, arguing that the Senate should wait for the Supreme Court’s decision to attain finality before acting.

Hontiveros seconded the motion of Sotto to “table,” rather than outright dismiss, the impeachment case, underscoring that no final decision has yet been issued by the Supreme Court, which is still awaiting the comment of the Vice President.

“This is not defiance of the Supreme Court. Wala pa pong final na desisyon (There is not final decision yet),” Hontiveros said, pushing back against arguments that proceeding with the impeachment trial could amount to judicial defiance.