A COALITION of Filipino citizens, including Roman Catholic priests, human rights advocates, and members of a non-governmental organization, has formally filed a Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention, asking the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its July 25 decision declaring the articles of impeachment against Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio unconstitutional.
The 75-page motion filed by Reverend Father Antonio Labiao, Jr., Reverend Father Joel Saballa, and Reverend Father Ruben Villanueva, among others asked the High Court to dismiss the petitions filed by Ms. Duterte and her camp.
“In the best interest of judicial and public order, this Honorable Court must reverse its Decision and allow the impeachment trial to proceed forthwith. The Filipino nation — with all its strength and frailties — deserve nothing less,” the petition read.
On July 25, the High Court ruled that the articles of impeachment filed against Ms. Duterte were unconstitutional, effectively halting efforts to push for her trial in the Senate.
The ruling stemmed from petitions lodged by Ms. Duterte and her legal team, who argued that the impeachment complaint failed to meet constitutional requirements and violated due process.
The impeachment case, initiated in the House of Representatives earlier this year, accused Ms. Duterte of alleged abuse of power and misuse of public funds. She has denied all allegations.
The fresh Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention, meanwhile, said the High Court’s decision “altered, on a colossal scale, the prevailing principles and procedures by which such impeachment proceedings may be conducted.”
As concerned citizens, the movant-intervenors emphasized the “transcendental importance” of the Vice-President’s impeachment, highlighting its role as an “essential tool for accountability” and a “direct remedy for the Filipino people to exact accountability from a high-ranking public official.”
Amando Virgil D. Ligutan, legal counsel for the third group of complainants in the impeachment case against Ms. Duterte, said they have filed a Motion for Reconsideration-and-Intervention before the SC to challenge its July 25 ruling.
Mr. Ligutan told reporters after filing the motion that his clients were dismayed by the tribunal’s decision, arguing their third impeachment complaint strictly followed procedure and should not have been dismissed alongside earlier complaints.
He maintained that archiving a complaint does not equate to dismissal and that the House acted within the 10-session-day period mandated by the Constitution.
He also questioned the SC’s introduction of new impeachment guidelines mid-process, calling it unfair to apply them retroactively.
“With all due respect to the SC, we most respectfully exhort the SC to look into this matter once and for all,” he said.
Mr. Ligutan disputed the Court’s view that the first-filed complaint takes priority over one initiated through the “automatic one-third vote” rule, stressing that impeachment proceedings fall within the House’s exclusive powers.
“The message of the third set of complainants is simple: that the Constitution is supposed to protect the state from the highest public officials, like the VP. It should not be the other way around.”
However, the High Court ruled that the first three complaints were considered terminated or dismissed once the House endorsed the fourth.
It said that the one-year ban is counted from the dismissal or loss of viability of a complaint.
The petitioners in this fresh motion were the proponents of the third impeachment complaint filed against Ms. Duterte in the House. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
