Senate archives articles of impeachment vs. Sara Duterte

The Senate on Wednesday voted to transfer to the archives the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, following the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to declare her impeachment unconstitutional.

With 19 votes for, four against, and one abstention, the Senate archived the impeachment complaint.

Senators Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, JV Ejercito, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada, Sherwin Gatchalian, Bong Go, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Rodante Marcoleta, Erwin Tulfo, Raffy Tulfo, Imee Marcos, and Robin Padilla, Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva, Camille Villar, and Mark Villar, and Miguel Zubiri voted yes.

Senators Bam Aquino, Risa Hontiveros, Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, Senate minority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III voted no. 

Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson abstained.

Marcoleta initially moved for the dismissal of the articles of impeachment, but agreed to Villanueva's amendment that the complaint instead be archived.

“Let history, Mr. President, record that in this moment, we chose the Constitution, we chose the rule of law by defending the integrity of the Supreme Court and maintaining the system of checks and balances under our republican system of government," Escudero said.

"Let this chamber be remembered not for the passions we inflamed, but the principles we upheld,” he added. 

Zubiri, in the explanation of his vote, said the impeachment case may be pulled from the archives, in light of the motions for reconsideration pending before the SC.

“That is why I thank the good movant, Mr. President, for allowing the amendment of the motion to make it a mere archiving of the document, because that will never stop us from being able to pull out the document from the archives,” Zubiri said.

Atty. Michael Poa, the spokesperson of Duterte’s defense team, acknowledged the Senate’s decision.

“Our focus now remains on submitting our Comment, in compliance with the High Court’s Order,” he said in a statement.

'Abandoning the mandate'

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Vicente Sotto III and some members of the minority argued that the Senate should wait for the decision of the Supreme Court on the motion for reconsideration that the Office of the Solicitor General filed on behalf of the House of Representatives.

"How can the Senate archive something that is not before it? The articles are before the impeachment court," said Sotto, a former Senate President and a long-time chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules as majority leader.

Hontiveros said, "Mr. President, I vote no. The 1987 Constitution entrusted the duty to try and decide all cases of impeachment to the Senate. Today, we are voting to abandon this mandate."

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

Duterte, in return, had entered a “not guilty” plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a “scrap of paper.” 

Recently, the Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it was barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violated her right to due process.

The high court said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings because the articles of impeachment were void.

The SC said it was not absolving Duterte of any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026.

The House then filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to reverse the SC decision. The lower chamber argued it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case.

'May God have mercy'

Before voting on Marcoleta's motion, as amended by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Joel Villanueva, the Senate also voted to dismiss the motion of Senate Minority Leader Sen. Vicente Sotto III "to table" the Marcoleta motion.

“With five affirmative votes, 19 negative votes, the motion to table the motion of Senator [Sotto] is lost,” Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero said. 

The Senate minority leader voted in favor of his motion, saying he has voted numerous times with the minority.

“I know that it will be a vote in the minority, but I have always voted in the minority on many issues in the Senate since 1992 up to the present. I always prayed I was wrong. Unfortunately, I was always right,” Sotto said.

“May God have mercy on your decision,” he added.

The SC previously ruled unanimously that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

The SC also ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. It said that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute itself into an impeachment court.

Explanation of votes

Alan Cayetano asked the senators present if they would kill Nazi leader Adolf Hitler as a child to prevent the Holocaust.

“If you kill Hitler as a six-year-old, if you justify the end by the means, you will create more Hitlers, so if the vice president is guilty, dapat po siya ay i-impeach. Pero sa tamang panahon at tamang proseso,” Cayetano said.

(If you kill Hitler as a six-year-old, if you justify the end by the means, you will create more Hitlers, so if the vice president is guilty, she should be impeached. But it should be at the right time and through the right process.)

“Nagsalita na ang Korte Suprema na mali ang proseso, mali ang panahon,” he added.

(The SC has said that the process is wrong, the timing is wrong.) 

Pia Cayetano said the SC declared the articles of Impeachment as null and void ab initio or invalid from the start. She added that while she also wanted to look into the case, the Senate had to “follow the rules.”

Dela Rosa said he submitted to the authority of the SC and respected its decision.

“What message would we send out to our people if we, legislators, would not honor the wisdom of the highest court in the law. Are we not, in effect, promoting anarchy?” Dela Rosa said. 

Estrada said that defying the SC would constitute an “unforgivable assault” on the country’s democratic institutions and “invite a constitutional crisis.”

'Against the intent of framers'

In voting no Hontiveros said that she only sought to ensure that the public had the power to hold the highest officials accountable.

“Hindi po dapat mahirap at teknikal ang impeachment. Taliwas ito sa intent ng framers. It should not be taxing to hold power to account. Anything that will make it easier for a public officer to evade accountability should be opposed,” Hontiveros said.

(Impeachment should not be difficult and technical. This is contrary to the intent of the Constitution's framers.)

Legarda, a member of the minority bloc like Hontiveros, explained that she voted yes as the Senate should not act contrary to the SC’s ruling.

“The Court speaks, and at times it speaks again. But until it does, the Senate must not act contrary to what it already said,” Legarda said.

Lacson, the sole senator to abstain, said he would rather wait and not preempt the ruling of the High Court on the motions filed for reconsideration of its ruling.

Motions for reconsideration

Three motions for reconsideration have been filed with the SC against its ruling. 

The first was filed by some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte, followed by the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

The third motion was filed by the 1Sambayan coalition, including Carpio-Morales and Carpio, previously filed a motion for reconsideration with the SC on its ruling. They asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and to set the case for oral arguments. –NB, GMA Integrated News