Diokno: SC ruling on first impeachment bid hinged on different process

MANILA, Philippines — The defense panel cannot use the Supreme Court (SC) ruling on the first attempt to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte to oppose the subpoena of bank and tax records because the petition was hinged on a different impeachment method, Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said on Tuesday.

Diokno, during the oral arguments on the prosecution’s request to subpoena Duterte’s bank and tax records, reminded the defense that the SC ruling — which declared the first impeachment attempt as unconstitutional — was on the ‘fast-track mode’ where the Articles of Impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate after securing the signatures of at least one-third of all House members.

The first impeachment attempt used the fast-track method, with 215 members of the House of the 19th Congress signing a fourth complaint last February 5, 2025.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Duterte impeachment: Defense, prosecution clash on bank, tax secrecy

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“The defense repeatedly cites the case of Duterte vs. House of Representatives — as I quote ‘the law of the land,’ as I quote, the decision was supposedly ‘controlling.’  But I must remind the defense of that particular case, and why the pronouncements quoted are mere obiter dicta or in simple terms, just a mere side comment,” Diokno, a member of the prosecution team, said in his rebuttal.

“The entire Duterte vs. House of Representatives case revolved around a different mode of impeachment.  If we remember that the case was filed through the one-third method, where at least one-third ng members of the House filed the case, and the entire decision discussed how due process should apply to that mode of impeachment,” he added.

Diokno was referring to defense lawyer Michael Poa’s points in his speech where he claimed that the prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank and tax records of Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio were overboard.

The reason why the request is overboard, Poa said, is based on the SC decision on Duterte’s petition against the House’s first impeachment attempt.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Your Honors, let’s talk about relevance.  It is our position that the requests of the prosecution are, in fact, fatally overbroad.  Why is it fatally overbroad?  An impeachable offense is an act or omission committed while the public official is occupying an impeachable office, not before being elected or appointed to such position,” Poa said.

“Again, your Honors, those are not my words, those are the words of the Supreme Court in Duterte vs the House of Representatives — that is controlling and that is the law of the land.  Yet here, your Honor, today, the prosecution is requesting for documents spanning almost two decades, almost 20 years, dating as far back as 2007,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

Duterte was impeached last May 11, after 257 House lawmakers voted to adopt House Resolution No. 989 which contains the Articles of Impeachment.  Only 25 members voted against the adoption of the resolution, while nine abstained.

But this was the second time that Duterte was impeached: in February 2025, 215 House members filed and signed a fourth complaint, which was based on allegations of misuse of confidential funds in her offices, threats against ranking officials, and other possible violations of the 1987 Constitution.

The articles of impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate on the same day, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution — which mandates that a trial must begin promptly if at least one-third of all House members, or 102 out of 306 lawmakers from the 19th Congress, endorse the complaint.

READ: House impeaches Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate

Trial, however, did not start immediately, as the articles of impeachment were not brought to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break.  The Senate also remanded the articles to the House for alleged constitutional infirmities.

In February 2025 also, two petitions seeking to halt the impeachment complaints against Duterte were filed before the SC. One of the petitions came from a group of Mindanao-based lawyers who argued that the House failed to observe constitutional rules requiring it to act on filed impeachment complaints within 10 session days.

The first impeachment complaint was filed by civil society groups in December 2024 but was only referred to the House Committee on Rules on February 5.

Eventually, SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the SC unanimously deemed the articles of impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate as unconstitutional for violating the 1987 Constitution’s one-year bar rule.

The House submitted a motion for reconsideration to appeal the case.

SC then announced in January that they have dismissed with finality the House’s motion for reconsideration.

The SC, in its ruling, has issued a seven-point guideline that should be followed to ensure fairness in the impeachment proceeding, including providing the respondent a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and evidence, and giving the respondent a reasonable time to respond.

Prior to Poa’s presentation of his arguments, Diokno reminded the public and the impeachment court that it has previously summon tax records of an accused official, as the the same court subpoenaed such document during the trial of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Diokno added that another member, Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano, argued that Corona’s bank records before he was a Chief Justice were important to the discussions of whether Corona committed impeachable offenses. /mr