SC rule jumpstarts impeachment

With the Supreme Court recently redefining the legislative clock, the impeachment process against Vice President Sara Duterte will effectively be deemed initiated by Monday, retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said on Friday.

The high tribunal’s ruling was a dramatic reversal of its prior stance, thrusting the nation into uncharted constitutional waters where a “session day” is now equated to a calendar day.

In its decision declaring unconstitutional the steps taken to impeach Vice President Duterte, the SC ruled that “session days” for impeachment proceedings are strictly calendar days, not actual plenary sessions, reversing its prior view that allowed flexible pauses.

The High Court’s resolution scraps the traditional view of stopping the clock during marathon debates to stretch a single day, a definition Carpio likened to an unprecedented invention, unbound by global precedents or Philippine history since the 1935 Constitution.

The SC’s radical shift on timelines, overturning its unanimous finding that no breach occurred in prior proceedings, retroactively invalidated past House actions, applying the new rule back to 5 February when the first impeachment complaint against Duterte was filed.

“We’re stuck with it now — the ruling is final and binding. By Monday, the 10-session days for the first impeachment complaint against VP Duterte will have elapsed, deeming it initiated in the House,” Carpio explained.

“So if the House does not do anything, it automatically goes to the committee on justice and Sara Duterte cannot raise any issue against that because it’s in the new ruling,” according to Carpio.

He said the timeline provided in the SC ruling “will be the new normal now. She has to face this new impeachment because this is pursuant to this new ruling. And I don’t think anyone would stop that because the ruling of the Supreme Court is final.”

Abante recalls Sara’s faults

Duterte’s refusal to take an oath before the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability was mentioned by House Committee on Human Rights chairperson Bienvenido Abante Jr. of Manila, who pressed the need for her to face the allegations raised in the fourth impeachment complaint.

Abante, an impeachment complainant and former vice chair of the panel, recalled that Duterte did not answer questions under oath during a previous inquiry.

“She refused to take an oath before the good government (panel),” Abante said, referring to the hearing where the Vice President appeared but did not respond to questions.

For the solon, the impeachment proceedings will now provide a formal venue to address the accusations.

“This is now a very good opportunity… for her to answer all the allegations,” Abante said, adding that the public deserves clarity on the issues hounding the Office of the Vice President.

Abante also pointed to the alleged misuse of public funds, stressing that confidential allocations are not exempt from accountability.

“Confidential funds are public funds, they’re not private funds,” Abante said.

Bank deposits targeted

Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V of La Union said the House of Representatives may examine the Vice President’s bank records as allegations of unexplained wealth and possible omissions in her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) cannot be ignored.

The accusations raised in the fourth impeachment complaint against the Vice President were described by Ortega as “serious and disturbing,” noting claims that “certain bank accounts, properties and significant cash movements were allegedly not fully reflected in Duterte’s SALNs.”

These matters “must be reconciled with the SALN disclosures,” particularly where, as alleged, “sworn accounts of large cash transfers” had allegedly been made, said the solon.

Filed by Atty. Nathaniel G. Cabrera, and endorsed by Abante and Ortega, the verified impeachment complaint was formally received by the House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil on Wednesday.

Like the three impeachment complaints earlier against the Vice President, it was transmitted to the Office of Speaker Faustino “Bojie” G. Dy III.

Cabrera, in his complaint, asked the House, through the appropriate committee, to issue subpoenas for bank records covering deposits, withdrawals, transfers, and other account activities from 2019 to 2025, as well as to coordinate with agencies such as the Commission on Audit, Bureau of Internal Revenue and Anti-Money Laundering Council.

It also proposed commissioning an independent forensic accounting team to reconcile Duterte’s SALNs with bank and property records.

Ortega underscored that the House has constitutional investigatory powers in impeachment proceedings and cited jurisprudence allowing the piercing of bank secrecy when the public interest demands it.

On the scope of the inquiry, he said: “If public officials are required to disclose all their assets and live modestly, then any material omission is a serious constitutional concern that the House cannot ignore.”

Rejecting claims that a scrutiny of financial records amounted to harassment, Ortega said: “Oversight is not persecution. It is a constitutional duty.”

At the core of the new filing are allegations that certain assets, bank accounts, cash holdings, and property transactions were either omitted, understated, or not fully reflected in Duterte’s SALNs.

The unexplained wealth allegations are linked to broader claims of irregular disbursements from confidential funds amounting to at least P612.5 million from December 2022 to the third quarter of 2023, involving both the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.

The complaint cites the rapid encashment of P125 million in December 2022, allegedly liquidated within 11 days, and subsequent findings by the CoA that flagged irregularities.

The CoA later issued notices of suspension and disallowance covering P73.287 million in questioned expenditures.