Tag:

supreme court en banc

Dela Rosa seeks ‘urgent’ SC intervention

by Rhoda Grace Saron May 15, 2026

written by Rhoda Grace Saron

IN A race against time, lawyers of former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte and Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa filed a “Very Urgent Manifestation” before the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday, May 14, for immediate injunctive relief.

The petition, docketed as GR No. 278747, asks the High Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Status Quo Ante Order following what the petitioners describe as “supervening events” that have made the need for judicial protection “urgent and irreversible.”

The 117-page manifestation was filed by Atty. Israelito Torreon at approximately 3:50 p.m.

This move follows a May 13 press brief from the Supreme Court En Banc , which required respondents—including Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin—to comment on previous motions within a non-extendible period of 72 hours.

While the Court’s initial action was “without prejudice” to take interim measures, the petitioners are now reiterating their plea for the Court to act immediately to prevent “irreversible” consequences.

Shortly after the filing, Torreon took to social media to appeal for public support.

Using a deeply personal and religious tone, the Davao-based lawyer called on supporters to “storm the heavens” with prayers ( duas ).

“Let us storm the heavens with duas that our prayers… will be granted. Insha Allah, Insha Allah, Insha Allah,” Torreon posted on Facebook, reflecting the high stakes of the case.

The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on the prayer for a TRO. e Senator.

No new subpoena

Meanwhile, the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group denied reports of a new subpoena issued against the lawmaker.

In an official statement signed by MGen Robert AA Morico II, the CIDG clarified that no new directive or enforcement timeline has been authorized following the recall of a previous subpoena.

The group described the circulating reports as “unverified information” that compromises “institutional relationships.”

This clarification from the CIDG comes as Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano confirmed that Senator Dela Rosa is no longer under the custody of the Senate .

During a press conference with national media on Thursday afternoon, Cayetano shared a personal update on the matter, reading a text message from the Senator’s wife.

In the message, she expressed her gratitude to the Senate leadership for the support provided to their family during the period of custody.

May 15, 2026 0 comments

News

SC affirms earlier ruling declaring VP Sara’s impeachment unconstitutional

by Rhoda Grace Saron January 29, 2026

written by Rhoda Grace Saron

THE SUPREME Court En Banc shut down the door of all legal efforts to impeach Vice President Sara Z. Duterte as it denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

In a unanimous vote of all participating justices, the high tribunal affirmed its July 25, 2025, decision, which declared the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President unconstitutional.

The Court ruled that the impeachment attempt transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025, violated the “one-year bar” rule stipulated in Article XI of the Constitution.

The SC clarified that the first three complaints filed against the vice president had already triggered the one-year window because they were not placed in the order of business within the mandatory 10-session days.

Crucially, the Court defined “session days” in its “plain and ordinary sense,” meaning any calendar day the House holds a session, rather than specific “legislative” session days.

The Court noted that while the House has the power to create its own rules, those rules cannot override constitutional requirements. It further clarified that even in a “direct” initiation, all endorsing members must be provided with the complaint and supporting evidence to satisfy the requirements of due process.

Due process is ‘sui generis’

The Court emphasized that the right to due process applies to impeachment, describing it as a commitment to “reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness.” However, it noted that due process in this context is sui generis (unique), as the full-blown trial occurs only once the case reaches the Senate.

In a move to ensure stability, the Court declared the resolution immediately executory upon digital service to all parties. “No further pleadings will be allowed,” the Court stated, effectively shielding the vice president from this specific impeachment cycle.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa took no part in the decision, while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave

Official statement of OVP

“We acknowledge the Resolution of the Supreme Court denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

“We thank the Honorable Court for a ruling that now definitively lays down clear and authoritative guidance on the constitutional limits and proper treatment of impeachment proceedings.

“With these issues settled by the Court, the matter is now closed. We should then move on to address the nation’s other pressing concerns,” it said.

January 29, 2026 0 comments

News

SC demands memoranda on legality of Duterte’s ICC arrest

by Rhoda Grace Saron November 30, 2025

written by Rhoda Grace Saron

THE SUPREME Court (SC) En Banc issued a new resolution in the highly publicized consolidated petitions on the arrest and transfer of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Instead of rendering a decision, the High Court directed all parties involved to submit comprehensive Memoranda within a non-extendible period of 30 days.

The resolution, linked recently on the SC website, covers three consolidated cases: G.R. No. 278763 (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Sebastian Z. Duterte), G.R. No. 278768 (Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Veronica A. Duterte), and G.R. No. 278798 (Petition for Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Prohibition filed by Rep. Paolo Z. Duterte).

Seeking clarification on key jurisdictional issues

The SC’s directive aims to clarify several critical constitutional and legal questions raised by the petitions, which challenge the executive department’s actions in enforcing the ICC’s warrant.

The Court required the parties—including the Duterte petitioners and government respondents led by the executive secretary and officials from the Departments of Justice and Interior and Local Government—to address the following:

Continuing Obligation: Whether Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute imposes a continuing obligation on the Philippines to cooperate with the ICC, despite the country’s formal withdrawal in 2019.
ICC Jurisdiction: Whether the ICC can still exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the former President for crimes allegedly committed while the Philippines was a member of the tribunal.
Legality of Arrest: Whether the arrest of former President Duterte, executed by Philippine authorities based on the ICC warrant, was legal under both international and domestic laws.
Constitutional Rights: Whether the former President’s constitutional and statutory rights were violated during his arrest and immediate transfer to the ICC detention facility in The Hague, Netherlands.

The consolidated petitions stemmed from the dramatic events of March 11, 2025, when Duterte was arrested shortly after arriving from Hong Kong and immediately flown out of the country to face charges of crimes against humanity before the ICC over his bloody “war on drugs” campaign.

The petitioners are seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for his immediate release and return to the Philippines, arguing that his arrest and subsequent surrender to a foreign tribunal had no legal basis following the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

The Supreme Court’s decision to require exhaustive memoranda signals its intention to rule on the core legal and constitutional implications of the country’s relationship with the ICC, an issue of paramount national interest.

November 30, 2025 0 comments