Sara: Senate Respects SC Impeachment Ruling
Marcos defends Executive Branch’s Non-Interference in Impeachment Cases as Challenges Mount
Table of Contents
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. reiterated the executive branch’s lack of involvement in impeachment proceedings, responding to questions about the handling of recent cases, including those targeting former President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Sara Duterte. Simultaneously occurring, lawmakers and legal groups are challenging the Supreme Court‘s rulings that have complicated impeachment efforts.
Presidential Stance on Impeachment
Marcos emphasized the separation of powers, stating, “The president has no role. I’m an impeachable officer. I cannot involve myself in any of this. So,it’s really the Supreme Court,the senate and the House,” when discussing the impeachment process. He alluded to concerns regarding how previous impeachment attempts where handled, but did not elaborate.
Focus on Accountability and Rule of Law
House Public Accounts committee chairman Terry Ridon underscored that the impeachment case against former President Duterte isn’t driven by political motives, but by a commitment to the rule of law.
“This is about accountability on the use of confidential funds, the accountability in the threats against the President, the first lady and the house Speaker,” Ridon explained during a press briefing Friday. He indicated the house is prepared to refile the impeachment complaint in February 2026 should the Supreme Court issue a final decision on the matter.
legal Challenges to Supreme Court Ruling
Members of the Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives have filed a joint motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn its July 25th decision declaring the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte unconstitutional.
The motion was filed by ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, Kabataan Party-list Rep.Renee Co, and Makabayan President Liza Maza, alongside other prominent figures including Teodoro Casiño, Renato Reyes, Modesto Floranda, and Amirah Lidasan. They are joined as intervenors by former representatives France Castro, Arlene Brosas, and Raoul Manuel, all of whom had previously endorsed the second impeachment complaint.
The National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) is representing the group.
Arguments for reconsideration
NUPL Secretary-General Josalee deinla argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling unnecessarily restricts a constitutional tool for accountability. “The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended impeachment to be a politically accessible tool of accountability, not a constitutional remedy encumbered by procedural obstacles,” she stated.
The motion raises several key points:
The House of Representatives did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
The impeachment articles were not barred by the one-year ban.
There is no established precedence differentiating the two methods of initiating impeachment.
Due process guarantees do not apply during the initial stages of impeachment.
Deinla warned that upholding the current decision could effectively render impeachment powerless. “The intervenors are gravely concerned that, if left standing, the decision could render impeachment as an ‘exceptional power of oversight’ powerless and out of reach.They urge the Supreme Court to apply the Constitution as it is indeed written,without overriding the meaning it gives itself. In a democracy, the path to accountability must remain open.”