The Supreme Court (SC) clarified on Friday that its ruling in the League of Cities case mentioned by Senator Risa Hontiveros in an earlier statement “was not unanimous.”“Please refer to the Decision and Resolutions published in the Supreme Court E-Library and the Philippine Reports,” said SC spokesperson Camille Ting in a statement. “We are uncertain as to the source of the claim that the decision was unanimous,” she added.
yung style ni Riza pag nabuking ay kapareho ng ibang users dito, nung binoldyak na siya ni marcoleta if whether en banc ba or division lang bigla siyang nagalit sabi “akala ko ba need ko lang magbigay ng unanimous case ngayon binigyan na kita nagtatanong ka pa rin” haha ang daming ganyan dito na umiiwas magisa pinipigilan ang mga kasunod na tanong
haha isa pa yan forthwith, pag forthwith may issue ang senate pero pag immediately assigned to committee on justice walang issue ang House, eh between forthwith and immediately alin ba ang mas mabilis?
Alam mo ba talaga yung ibig sabihin ng Forthwill Proceed? The Senate has the power to drop everything and start the trial and can convene as a special impeachment court, even outside regular sessions, to fulfill this duty. But the Senate President’s goal is to delay the trial and assumes the SC will pick up and make the decision to stop it immediately.
Haha, napaisip mo na ako. Since you’re curious about ‘forthwith’ vs. ‘immediately,’ here’s a tough one for you: With the Supreme Court’s July 25, 2025, decision redefining ‘initiate’ in Article XI, Section 3(4) to include unreferred, archived complaints, triggering the one-year ban and voiding VP Sara Duterte’s fourth impeachment, do you think the Senate’s delay under the 2003 Francisco precedent (where ‘initiate’ needed committee referral) had an influence on the Court’s jurisdictional analysis, especially with Article VIII, Section 4(2)’s immediate effect and the House’s MR deadline of August 9, 2025? And how might this affect the constitutional power balance if the Senate used Article VI, Section 16(3) to gather a quorum during a break to beat the Court’s ruling?
Haha paano kaya kung ang Senate nag-decide mag-convene agad kahit session break gamit ang Article VI, Section 16(3), bago pa maglabas ng desisyon ang Court noong July 25, 2025—maaapektuhan kaya ng bagong ‘initiate’ rule ang trial nila?
actually nakapag convene na sila as impeachment court bossing at nakapag panumpa na nga, pero pag void ab initio bossing all the convening and oath taking will have no legal effect since void from the start ang hatol, same din yan sa kay joey na-proclaim na siya pero void ab initio ang candidacy niya so all the winning and proclaiming are deemed no legal effect pa rin
Hahaha saan dyan yung constitutional balance of powers? Kung ang Senate gumamit ng Article VI, Section 16(3) para magtipon ng quorum noong June 10, 2025, habang session break, at nag-request ng advisory opinion under Article VIII, Section 1 tungkol sa bagong ‘initiate’ rule, paano maapektuhan ng Article VII, Section 11 (succession) at Article XI, Section 3(7) (immunity) ang legal status ni VP Duterte kung mag-resign siya bago ang MR deadline ng House sa August 9, 2025, kasabay ng retroactive clash ng 2003 Francisco precedent sa 2025 ruling, at disqualification ng Chief Justice sa Canon 2 bias, habang 12/15 justices ay appointees ng ama niya—sino ang walang vested interest?
your argument only becomes valid if may binago nga sa previous ruling bossing, so need pa natin pagtalunan if may nabago ba bafore tayo mag proceed sa argument mo
Haha nice try but you’re stuck on whether the 2003 Francisco ruling was redefined. The July 25, 2025, decision expanded ‘initiate’ to include unreferred, archived complaints, not just committee referrals, as Azcuna and NUPL confirmed (Inquirer). If the Senate used Article VI, Section 16(3) to convene on June 10, 2025, despite a break, and deferred via Article VIII, Section 1 for an advisory opinion, how does Article VII, Section 11 succession kick in if Duterte resigns before the August 9, 2025, MR deadline, clashing with Article XI, Section 3(7) immunity, while the 2025 ruling retroactively overrides Francisco, and a Canon 2-disqualified Chief Justice (with 12/15 justices tied to Dutae) is replaced—who’s next without bias?
nope, unreferred, acrhived are not added to the initiation because these actions are “termination” and not initiation, very clear sa constitution na hindi optional sa House to not continue processing impeachment complaints, required nila i-process ang any impeachment na ma-i-submit, nag set lang ang court ng step where the complaint is considered officially initiated,
yung verdict did not declare the 1 year bar was triggered due to initiation, but the 1 year bar was triggered due to “not initiating” kasi nga hindi discretion ng house to initiate any impeachment but they are required by constitution to initiate any complaint submitted to them
Haha, mali ka diyan! The July 25, 2025, SC ruling (per judiciary.gov.ph) explicitly expanded “initiate” to treat unreferred, archived complaints as “initiated” and “effectively dismissed” upon adjournment, triggering the one-year bar under Article XI, Section 3(4) due to multiple initiations, not “not initiating.” The Constitution doesn’t mandate processing all complaints if they violate the bar—it’s a safeguard against harassment, not a requirement to proceed blindly. Your claim flips the ruling; the bar was from the initiations (filings + archiving), as Azcuna and NUPL noted.
Now, If Senate convened June 10, 2025, via Article VI, Section 16(3) quorum despite break, and sought Article VIII, Section 1 advisory on the new ‘initiate’ rule, how does Article VII, Section 11 succession alter Duterte’s status if she resigns pre-August 9, 2025 MR deadline, clashing with Article XI, Section 3(7) immunity and retroactive Francisco override? Plus, with Canon 2 bias disqualifying the Chief Justice (12/15 justices Duterte appointees), who’s the unbiased next presiding officer?
nope, unreferred/archiving is only an act of dismissing bossing, sinabi ko na nga sayo walang option si House to reject initiation, constitutional duty na nila ang mag initiate, at no need na din mag impose ang court ng additional meaning sa initiation when the constitution is already requiring the House itself to initiate every complaint
