Court warrant vs. Sara ‘no effect’ on impeachment trial — Gatchalian
Text size
A Quezon City court’s arrest warrant against Vice President Sara Duterte has no bearing on the ongoing impeachment proceedings against her, Senate President Win Gatchalian said Sunday.
Gatchalian explained that the Quezon City Regional Trial Court and the Senate impeachment court operate under different proceedings, with the former determining criminal liability and the latter determining political accountability and fitness for public office.
“In my opinion, that has no effect on the impeachment court, because a regular court is different from an impeachment proceeding. The court has determined that there is probable cause, and a hearing will take place,” Gatchalian said in a radio interview.
“The same applies to the impeachment court. The defense will still present its case [and] we will examine it, and from there, a decision will be reached. So the proceedings are different,” he added.
Impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Reginald Tongol likewise said the principle of double jeopardy does not apply because an impeachment case is not a criminal proceeding.
“The impeachment court is a sui generis (unique) constitutional tribunal with the supreme mandate to determine political accountability and fitness for office, not penal liability,” Tongol told reporters in a Viber message.
Citing the 1987 Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling in Estrada v. Desierto, Tongol said criminal prosecution may proceed independently of impeachment.
He said Duterte’s arrest warrant and subsequent posting of bail for the grave threats case do not legally alter, pause or dictate the impeachment court’s proceedings.
The warrant was issued less than a month after the Department of Justice filed grave threats charges against Duterte before the Quezon City RTC. The case stemmed from her 23 November 2024 remarks in which she said she had arranged for an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she were killed.
Duterte later retracted the statement, saying her remarks had been “maliciously taken out of logical context.”
She remains free on bail after posting a total of ₱360,000 on Saturday for three counts of grave threats.
Sen. Bong Go, a Duterte ally, questioned the timing of the warrant, saying the court could have issued it earlier since the alleged threats were made nearly two years ago.
Gatchalian, however, said the impeachment court has no control over the actions of other agencies.
“There are simultaneous investigations taking place, so we cannot control how things will proceed in the other agencies,” he said.
The grave threats allegations form part of Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment. The article also covers Duterte’s 18 October 2024 press briefing, during which she was quoted as saying she wanted to behead Marcos after describing their relationship as having become “toxic.”
The prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence on the grave threats on 22 July, but the impeachment court has yet to issue a ruling as the trial remains ongoing.
Gatchalian said the RTC’s ruling would not influence the impeachment court’s decision because the two proceedings address different matters.
The DOJ earlier made a similar position, saying the impeachment trial does not prevent a parallel criminal investigation into Duterte’s alleged grave threats.
The National Bureau of Investigation initially investigated Duterte’s statements in November 2024, resulting in the filing of grave threats and inciting to sedition complaints before the DOJ. The DOJ later dropped the inciting to sedition complaint for lack of sufficient evidence.
After President Marcos appointed NBI Director Melvin Matibag in February 2026, Matibag ordered the probe reopened in April. He earlier told the impeachment court that the NBI considered Duterte’s threat “serious, active, and continuing,” warranting further investigation by a special task force.
Matibag also said the NBI had obtained leads that could help identify the alleged gunman but declined to disclose the person’s identity.
Gatchalian also dismissed speculation that senator-judges were planning to lower the 16-vote threshold required to convict an impeached official, an issue raised by Sen. Migz Zubiri.
“There are talks but there is no definite plan yet. These are just talks within ourselves,” he said.
The proposal reportedly arose amid changes in the Senate’s composition and the prolonged absence of several senators.
Former Supreme Court associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, previously told the Daily Tribune that the impeachment court “cannot lower the threshold for conviction unless it expels a member or possibly declares him or her as resigned.”
Azcuna also said absent senators’ votes are automatically counted as abstentions.
The impeachment court’s spokesperson had earlier warned that lowering the threshold would be “dangerous” because it would effectively require the court to amend its rules while the trial is ongoing.
Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of all Senate members to convict an impeached official, equivalent to 16 of the 24 senators.
A conviction would result in removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, potentially affecting Duterte’s reported plans to seek the presidency in the 2028 elections.
