(Manila, 30th) The Philippine Senate will convene a plenary session again on August 6 to consider whether to officially dismiss the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, giving senators more time to study the Supreme Court’s 97-page verdict.
Senate President Escudero stated after yesterday’s (29th) core caucus meeting that, considering the importance and legal complexity of the case, the Senate had decided to postpone the vote.
At a press conference before the meeting, Escudero had already expressed opposition to moving forward with the impeachment trial, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision had “clearly declared the impeachment case invalid.”
“Personally, I believe we have no reason not to comply with the Court’s decision,” he said, warning that if the Senate were to defy the verdict, it could trigger a constitutional crisis.
According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, some senators had hoped to immediately dismiss the impeachment case on the 29th, but after an appeal by Minority Leader Sotto, it was ultimately decided to defer the agenda.
To recap, in February this year, the House of Representatives filed impeachment charges against Sara on three counts: corruption, graft, and plotting to assassinate President Marcos Jr.
Sara’s team promptly petitioned the Supreme Court for judicial review, arguing that the House's third impeachment attempt violated the constitutional provision that allows only one impeachment per year, thus constituting procedural abuse.
The Supreme Court ruled on the 25th of this month that the House’s actions were unconstitutional and dismissed the impeachment case. Analysts believe this move could pave the way for Sara’s future run for the presidency in 2028, as conviction from impeachment would permanently disqualify her from running for office.
However, not all senators are willing to accept the court’s decision. Several senators jointly signed a statement on the 28th pointing out that the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the “one-year restriction” was akin to “changing the rules during the game,” questioning its fairness.
“If we allow such a precedent to exist, we may be stifling the impeachment mechanism that is meant to serve as a check on power,” the statement read.
Senate President Escudero stated after yesterday’s (29th) core caucus meeting that, considering the importance and legal complexity of the case, the Senate had decided to postpone the vote.
At a press conference before the meeting, Escudero had already expressed opposition to moving forward with the impeachment trial, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision had “clearly declared the impeachment case invalid.”
“Personally, I believe we have no reason not to comply with the Court’s decision,” he said, warning that if the Senate were to defy the verdict, it could trigger a constitutional crisis.
According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, some senators had hoped to immediately dismiss the impeachment case on the 29th, but after an appeal by Minority Leader Sotto, it was ultimately decided to defer the agenda.
To recap, in February this year, the House of Representatives filed impeachment charges against Sara on three counts: corruption, graft, and plotting to assassinate President Marcos Jr.
Sara’s team promptly petitioned the Supreme Court for judicial review, arguing that the House's third impeachment attempt violated the constitutional provision that allows only one impeachment per year, thus constituting procedural abuse.
The Supreme Court ruled on the 25th of this month that the House’s actions were unconstitutional and dismissed the impeachment case. Analysts believe this move could pave the way for Sara’s future run for the presidency in 2028, as conviction from impeachment would permanently disqualify her from running for office.
However, not all senators are willing to accept the court’s decision. Several senators jointly signed a statement on the 28th pointing out that the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the “one-year restriction” was akin to “changing the rules during the game,” questioning its fairness.
“If we allow such a precedent to exist, we may be stifling the impeachment mechanism that is meant to serve as a check on power,” the statement read.