30/05/2025
VP SARA’S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PUTS SENATE IN LEGAL QUANDARY
The Senate of the Philippines finds itself in a procedural dilemma over whether it can continue the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Inday Sara Duterte.
The confusion stems from conflicting interpretations of Senate rules and constitutional provisions, raising critical questions about the feasibility of pursuing the case in the current Congress.
Let’s discuss this.
Under the Senate Rules, three key provisions complicate the matter:
1. Unfinished Business(Sections 1, 2, and 3)- It says that pending matters, including impeachment trials, should technically carry over as unfinished business. However, this is not absolute. Precisely because there is a concept called “sine die.”
2. Sine Die Adjournment Effect- So, once Congress adjourns sine die (without a set return date), all pending matters, including impeachment complaints, are considered “terminated.” This means the Senate cannot simply resume the trial in the same Congress. There should be a new complaint to be filed in the next Congress. This is where Rule 44 steps in.
3. Rule 44 (Continuation of Impeachment Trials)– This emphasizes that an impeachment trial must reach a conclusion. If left unfinished by session’s end, the process cannot be picked up in the next Congress without restarting entirely.
Given these rules, the 20th Congress may lack the legal basis to proceed unless the impeachment complaint is refiled in the next session.
And here comes another rule that will definitely play a key role in the proceeding.
The constitutional provision called “One-Year Bar Rule.”
Adding to the confusion is Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution, which states: "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."
According to the Office of the Ombudsman Philippines, this provision aims to prevent abuse of the impeachment process and ensures that an official is not subjected to repeated investigations or trials within a short timeframe.
Now, if the current impeachment complaint dies with the sine die adjournment, can a new one be filed immediately in the next Congress? Or does the one-year ban apply, effectively shielding the Vice President from another impeachment attempt within twelve months?
Past impeachment cases—such as those against former Chief Justice Renato Corona and President Joseph Estrada—provide some guidance but do not fully resolve this unique scenario.
The Senate may need a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court PH on whether the one-year bar applies if the initial complaint lapses due to procedural termination rather than a formal dismissal.
VP Sara already filed a petition before the SC to make a ruling on this especially considering that 3 impeachment cases were filed first in 2024 and what the 19th Congress approved is the 4th impeachment that took place this year. Naunahan silang lahat ni VPSD.
This impasse is more than just a technical dispute, it tests the integrity of the impeachment process as a constitutional check on power.
If the Senate cannot proceed due to procedural gaps, critics may argue that the system allows officials to evade accountability. Conversely, forcing a rushed trial without clear legal footing could undermine the constitutional provision of due process.
The Senate must now decide: Should it seek judicial clarification, let the complaint lapse, or find a legislative workaround?
Whatever the outcome, this episode underscores the need for clearer impeachment rules to prevent such confusion in the future.
Editorial: Tio Moreno
PS: This is not news. This is a commentary about the impeachment trial development in the Senate citing some legal bases and constitutional provisions. Don’t convert this as news. This isn’t fake news. 🙄
