IT ONLY took a single day for the Supreme Court to decide and come out with a controversial 97-page decision on the issue of impeachment trial of Misfit Sara. This was suggested by a lawyer, who claimed to have looked closely into this issue.
The lawyer declined identification because he is the lawyer of certain clients, who have pending issues with the High Court. She claimed she was representing these clients and she felt their interest would be jeopardized before the High Court if her identity is revealed.
The petition challenging the constitutionality of the impending impeachment trial was filed by Misfit Sara’s camp shortly after the Feb. 5 submission of the Articles of Impeachment signed by 240 members of the House of Representatives and submitted to the Senate on the same day. But the Senate, through Tricky Tsis Forthwith, sat on it. It did nothing official until July 8, when the Supreme Court directed the House to respond to a set of questions on the impeachment process it pursued on Misfit Sara. In legal parlance, it was an interrogatory.
The House filed its compliance to what the High Court asked. That was on July 21, which fell on a Monday. There was no work in government agencies on the following day, Tuesday, until Thursday mainly because of heavy rains and subsequent floods in many places nationwide. On Friday, the Supreme Court held an en banc session purportedly to discuss pending issues in the High Court. But the biggest surprise – or miracle (?) – happened when it approved and released a 97-page controversial decision, declaring Misfit Sara’s impeachment trial as unconstitutional and virtually stopping the Senate from pursuing the impeachment trial.
There were no hearings whatsoever, according to the lawyer. The High Court did not hold any session for oral arguments or exchanges of arguments from contending parties. This is part of its traditions to know the various standpoints. There was no memorandum or any order by the High Court that the case was submitted for resolution. What was observed is the inordinate rush of the High Court’s magistrates to come out with the decision, she said. It was a unanimous decision, as 12 magistrates voted in favor of the verdict.
Why the sudden rush to come out with a decision is now the subject of many speculations, mostly controversial. Incidentally, the decision was the ponencia of Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. He was also the ponente of the 2021 decision affirming the power of Gongdi to withdraw unilaterally the membership of the Philippines from the Rome Statute, the multilateral treaty that has created the International Criminal Court (ICC). But unlike Misfit Sara’s case, it took the Supreme Court more than two years to come out with the case on PHL withdrawal from the Rome Statute (it is also called Pangilinan v. Cayetano).
By all means, Leonen’s ponencia on Misfit Sara’s case is a virtual masterpiece of mediocrity. It shows its haphazard way of writing. It is no landmark decision by all means and it contributes not much to jurisprudence. It has nothing much to show. The arguments it has posited also smell of perversion as well. It attempts in a perverse way possible to redraw the Constitution by coming out short of defining how an impeachment complaint has to be initiated. There were claims that somebody else wrote the decision and it was only fed to the High Court.
Legal luminaries were essentially unanimous in their low opinion of Leonen’s ponencia. Said Adolf Azcuna, a retired High Court justice and one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution: “ The 97-page Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the Sara Duterte case may be legally correct but it strikes me as rather unfair. I say so because it rules the Articles of Impeachment adopted by the HR as violating the only one complaint within one year rule by crafting a new definition of what constitutes being ‘initiated’ and applying it to a complaint adopted in reliance on its previous and then prevailing definition.
Continued Azcuna, reputedly the author of the constitutional provisions on impeachment and accountability of public officials: “Recall that in the Davide case, the Supreme Court defined initiating an Impeachment complaint as putting it in the order of business and referring it to a proper committee. This was not done to the three earlier complaints in this case. The new definition, however, would now cover a situation where the complaints were NOT referred to a committee and, after the lapse of the time to do so, archived, and thus, the Supreme Court said, ‘effectively dismissed.’
Azcuna said it would be “unfair” to apply the new definition to Misfit sara’s case and suggested what he termed a “Supplemental Resolution,” which he said would apply “the Doctrine of Operative Facts, which it has applied before in similar cases, stating that where actions were taken and things done in reliance on its former and then prevailing definition (or in the absence of one), the action and things done will be treated as valid, and the new definition will be applied prospectively, i e, to future cases.”
His closing salvo: “In this way, I respectfully submit, the people’s unwavering demand for accountability now will be served, and the trial in the Senate can still, and finally, proceed forthwith.”
Said a certain Teresa Magbanua, netizen and critic: “The 2025 decision dismantles that safeguard, creating a procedural choke point where even a valid and endorsed complaint can now be neutralized through the strategic filing of earlier, frivolous ones. Merit is no longer a defense against manipulation. Impeachment, once a constitutional remedy, has been reduced to a loophole. In this new terrain, accountability can be ruled out by premeditated filings.”
Said Leila de Lima, a former senator, political prisoner, and member of the 11-man Prosecution Team from the House of Representatives: “The decision is basically an ex-parte decision, a very prohibited action among judges when the rules require the parties to be given the opportunity to be heard first. I respect the Supreme Court. But in a case of this magnitude—transcendental constitutional importance—we must demand clarity, not shortcuts. The public deserves an explanation. The Court must account for this serious departure from established rules of procedure.”
Her parting shot: “To those discouraged: I understand your dismay. But let me assure you: this is not vindication. This is not exoneration.”
Former High Court chief justice Artemio Panganiban proposed the filing of a petition before the High Court asking for a status quo ante, or a reversion to the same status before it has issued its decision. This only means the impeachment trial should proceed amid the criticisms of many sectors and lawyers’ groups on the decision. This is what Misfit Sara does not want. She dislikes any public trial because it would give the prosecution the chance to present tons of evidence against her.
