Senators flag VP impeachment archive as ‘missed’ constitutional duty

By Wilnard Bacelonia, Philippine News Agency

Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros said the 19-4-1 vote to archive the complaint effectively “abandoned” the Senate’s constitutional mandate to act as an impeachment court. (File photo: Senate of the Philippines/Facebook)

MANILA – Senators from the minority bloc expressed strong reservations on Thursday over the Senate’s decision to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, warning that it set a troubling precedent for future accountability proceedings.

Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros said the 19-4-1 vote to archive the complaint effectively “abandoned” the Senate’s constitutional mandate to act as an impeachment court.

“Ang leksyon dito ay dapat seryoso kami sa tungkulin naming ibinigay ng Saligang Batas. Parang inabandona ng Senado ang tungkulin nito kagabi (The lesson here is we must be protective of our constitutional duties. It felt like the Senate abandoned its role last night),” Hontiveros said in an interview with DZBB.

She said archiving the complaint – rather than tabling it as initially proposed by Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III – imposed a higher threshold to reopen the case, requiring another majority vote should the Supreme Court reverse its July 25 ruling.

“Pag in-archive kahit hindi pa patay, napakahirap ilabas sa archives (Once a case is archived, even if not dismissed, it becomes very difficult to bring it back),” she said.

The Supreme Court had declared the Articles of Impeachment “null and void ab initio,” noting that the Senate never acquired jurisdiction.

However, Hontiveros said the House of Representatives had filed a motion for reconsideration (MR), and the Court has yet to resolve it.

“Bakit kayo nagmamadali? Hintayin natin ang buong impormasyon bago magdesisyon tungkol sa trial (Why rush? We should have waited for all the information before making a decision on the trial),” she added.

Better than dismissal

Senator Panfilo Lacson, who abstained from the final vote, said he played a key role in averting the outright dismissal of the complaint – a move that would have permanently barred its revival.

“If the motion to dismiss had prevailed, the case would be moot and academic even if the Supreme Court reversed its decision,” Lacson said in an interview.

He credited his intervention during the session for persuading Senator Rodante Marcoleta to amend his motion from dismissal to archiving, which allows for the case to be revived under certain conditions.

Lacson noted that the Supreme Court’s decision to require Vice President Duterte to comment on the MR suggests the case is still active.

“That’s a signal that the Court is open to reconsidering or reviewing its decision,” he said.

Pangilinan: Senate action ‘premature’

Meanwhile, Senator Francis Pangilinan, who also voted against the motion to archive, said the Senate should have exercised inter-chamber courtesy by waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the House’s MR.

“To vote to archive the complaint despite the MR still pending is premature. The ruling may still be reversed or modified,” Pangilinan said.

In his explanation of vote, he underscored that “one cannot be right with the law if one is wrong with the facts,” referencing what he described as “misapprehension” in the High Court’s ruling, particularly its claim that the House did not vote on the Articles of Impeachment.

He also warned of the broader constitutional implications: “The impeachment court being ousted of its jurisdiction by the Supreme Court is unprecedented and, sadly, based on wrong facts.”

‘Impeachment must follow process’

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano emphasized the importance of handling impeachment cases with care, reminding fellow lawmakers that such proceedings are “extraordinary remedies” meant to protect the nation.

“Para protektahan ang ating bansa at para alisin sila sa equation if they will damage our country (It’s meant to protect the country and remove someone who may cause harm),” he said.

Cayetano said the Supreme Court ruling does not render future impeachments impossible.

Citing pages 93 to 94 of the decision, he said there are clear guidelines for properly initiating such proceedings.

“It’s not true that it’s too difficult. Sundin lang ang page 93 to 94… magagawa ito at any time (Just follow pages 93 to 94… it can be done at any time),” he said.

He described the Court’s decision as a “balanced reminder” for Congress to follow the proper process, stressing that future complaints can still move forward if filed correctly.

Checks and balances

In another statement, Senator Joseph Victor Ejercito noted the importance of honoring the roles of each branch of government.

“While it is true that the Senate has the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases, our Supreme Court is the sole interpreter of laws in our system of government,” Ejercito said.

“We may or may not agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court, but it is our duty as a co-equal body to abide by it.”

Awaiting February 2026

Hontiveros said should the Supreme Court uphold its decision, a new impeachment case may still be filed by civil society or House members after Feb. 6, 2026, one year after the initial complaint was transmitted.

Until then, members of the Senate minority vowed to continue pushing for transparency, accountability, and respect for the constitutional process.

“Huwag ninyong isipin na wala nang aasahan sa Senado. Magsusumikap pa rin kami para sa mga prinsipyong iyan ng accountability (Don’t lose hope in the Senate. We will continue working to uphold accountability),” Hontiveros said.