August 7, 2025
MANILA – After hours of debate, the Senate on Wednesday ruled to archive the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, following the recent decision of the Supreme Court (SC).
Nineteen senators, including Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, voted in favor of Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva’s motion to archive the complaint against Duterte while four voted against it.
Only Sen. Panfilo Lacson abstained from the voting, saying he “would rather wait, not preempt, the final ruling of the High Court.”
Villanueva’s motion was an amendment to the original proposal of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta to have the case dismissed, citing the decision of the SC that declared it unconstitutional.
“Adhering to the immediately executory decision rendered by the Supreme Court en banc on 25th July, 2025, which held among others that the Articles of Impeachment are null and void ab initio and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the same, I move to transfer the Articles of Impeachment in relation to case 0022011 entitled, “In the matter of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte” to the archives. I so move, Mr. President,” Villanueva said.
Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III objected to the amended motion, and asked for a nominal voting.
According to Escudero, a motion to bring the impeachment case out of the archives could still be made once the SC reverses its decision.
“If the Supreme Court reverses itself, however possible or impossible that may be, then we will entertain a motion to bring it out of the archives and act accordingly again in obedience to the Supreme Court decision,”the Senate chief explained before they voted on Villanueva’s motion.
Sotto argued that abiding by the SC’s ruling means that the Senate concedes that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment case against Duterte when in fact, the chamber had already convened as an impeachment court in the 19th Congress.
“They even wore a robe. That robe shouldn’t be just for movies or TV shows. You convened. So the Supreme Court can’t say that it never acquired jurisdiction,” he said in Filipino.
In response, Escudero explained that “Legally, when you say the Senate never acquired jurisdiction, it does not deny the fact that we convened.”
“That factual situation still exists and is part of our records. That’s why the better alternative is to archive it because it was part of what actually happened, transpired, and is part of the Senate history,” he pointed out.
Sotto tried to block Marcoleta’s original motion by moving to table the latter’s “motion to dismiss.” His countermotion was seconded by Sen. Risa Hontiveros.
Voting 19-5, however, the Senate rejected Sotto’s motion and then proceeded to vote on Villanueva’s amended motion.
On July 25, the high tribunal unanimously declared the impeachment complaint against Duterte unconstitutional for violating the one-year rule on filing such cases.
READ: Supreme Court: Impeachment complaint vs Sara Duterte unconstitutional
Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
Four impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte before the House of Representatives — the first three were separately lodged by various groups in December 2024 while the fourth was initiated through a resolution signed by 215 House lawmakers on February 5.
According to SC, the first three complaints were “archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed” when the House approved the fourth complaint and immediately transmitted the same to the Senate for trial.
It was only on June 10, or just two days before the sine die adjournment of the 19th Congress, that the Senate convened as an impeachment court.
The Senate impeachment court was set to resume on August 4, but this did not push through as senators agreed to just decide in plenary how they would proceed with the impeachment case, following the SC’s decision.