Priests, lawyers ask SC to reconsider ruling on VP Sara impeachment

Priests and lawyers on Monday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling that barred the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the fifth group to do so. 

In a 75-page motion for reconsideration-in-intervention, the petitioners asked the High Court to set aside and reverse its July 25, 2025 decision, where it ruled that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process.

“The Constitution is supposed to protect the State from the highest of public officials like the vice president. It should not be the other way around. The law and the Constitution should not be used to protect the vice president from the people of the Philippines,” the petitioners’ counsel Amando Ligutan said.

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

The petitioners are the ones behind the third impeachment complaint that was filed against Duterte with the House of Representatives.

They are Fathers Joel Saballa, Ruben Villanueva, and Antonio Labiao Jr. of the Diocese of Novaliches; SUGOD Rosary Group lead founder Wilfredo Villanueva; SUGOD member Pinky Tam; Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao; and SELDA Greater Davao member Maria Loreto Lopez. 

In their petition, they argued that the House of Representatives was not guilty of inaction on the first three complaints. 

They also argued that the due process clause does not apply in the initiation phase of the impeachment proceedings.

Aside from this, they argued that the SC encroached on the exclusive powers of Congress to weigh and appreciate the evidence in impeachment cases.

“Here, although four impeachment complaints were filed before the Secretary General, only one initiated the proceeding. Again, although there were four matchsticks, only one of them lit the candle,” it said.

Meanwhile, Ligutan clarified that they find no problem with the House’s archiving of the third impeachment complaint.

“We are telling the public, we do not have any problem with what the House of Representative did to our complaint. Totoo po, they archived our complaint but they proceeded to filing the strongest and the best possible version of the impeachment complaint,” he said.

“We are of the belief that the fourth impeachment complaint that the House passed is built on the strength of the impeachment complaint filed,” he added.   

Five motions for reconsideration have been filed against the SC ruling, including the present petition. 

The other motions were filed by the House of Representatives, the 1Sambayan coalition, the complainants behind the first impeachment complaint, and Makabayan members. — BM, GMA Integrated News