1Sambayan, others ask SC to pause action on Sara impeachment, allow arguments

Political coalition 1Sambayan and others on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a status quo ante order that will pause the proceedings of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a day before the Senate is expected to decide whether to abide by the High Court’s ruling that barred the trial. 

The petitioners filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the impeachment cases as well as to admit their motion for reconsideration, where they asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and to set the case for oral arguments.

A status quo order is intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy, according to the SC.

“[I]t is judicially wise for this Honorable Court to grant a Status Quo Ante Order that prevents the Senate of the Philippines from taking concrete action such as to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment considering the pending constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved by this Honorable Court,” the petitioners said in their 52-page motion.

Among the petitioners were retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and retired Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.

Petitioner Howard Calleja, meanwhile, called on the Senate to hold off from deciding on the impeachment due to the pending petition.

“That’s why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate na sana pakinggan muna itong mga issues. Let us thresh out all the issues bago tayo mag desisyon kung idi-dismiss or whatever ‘yung gagawin natin,” he said.

(That’s why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate, hopefully they will first listen to these issues first. Let us thresh out all the issues before we decide whether to dismiss or whatever action we will take.)

Calleja said that the Senate impeachment court should also continue the trial.

“Pero kung hindi nila maisip na gawin ‘yun siguro hingin atin kumbaga mag status quo ante muna tayo. Huwag tayong ora-orada na gagawa ng desisyon kasi nga meron pang pending na ito na pwede mag bago,” he said.

(But if they don’t think of doing that, we will ask for a status quo ante. Let’s not rush into making a decision because this is still pending and could change things.)

“Na sana kung gusto nila galangin ang Korte Suprema, galangin din nila ang proseso at sa pag galang ng proseso, eh medyo—sabi ko nga status quo muna. Hinay-hinay kasi ang proseso hindi pa tapos,” he added. 

(That hopefully, if they want to respect the SC, they should also respect the process, and in respecting the process—like I said, status quo for now. Let’s take it slow because the process isn’t over yet.)

In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds.

It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment.

However, the SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint.

In their MR, the petitioners said that the SC ruling overturned the Francisco Jr. ruling, where the SC previously said that an impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House.

The petitioners argued that the fourth impeachment complaint was filed and acted upon before the House adjourned.

They argued that the first three complaints cannot be deemed to have attained the status of being “initiated.”

“It is respectfully emphasized that the Fourth Complaint had already been approved prior to the adjournment of Congress; hence the effectivity of the one-year ban rule upon adjournment does not affect it,” they said. 

Aside from this, the petitioners argued that the ruling on the reckoning of the one-year ban will lead to grave consequences.

“Such a rule creates a perverse incentive for an impeachable officer to inoculate himself from accountability simply by causing the filing of sham complaints, because whether the Congress acts on them, the mere filing would already trigger and consume the one-year ban, a result inconsistent with the Constitution,” they said.

The petitioners also stressed that the first three complaints never reached the House committee.

This is the third motion for reconsideration filed with the SC against its ruling.

Last week, some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam, where they asked the High Court to declare the fourth impeachment complaint as constitutional.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives on Monday filed its own motion for reconsideration, arguing that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. — BM, GMA Integrated News