Senator Robin Padilla on Monday, September 7, questioned the Senate’s position on the filing of grave threats charges against Vice President Sara Duterte, citing the constitutional protections afforded to impeachable officials.
In his manifestation during the Senate plenary session, Padilla said he was troubled by the developments involving the sitting Vice President, who is currently facing an impeachment trial before the Senate.
“Ako po ay binalot ng mga karimari-marim na balita nitong nakaraang araw. Ang isang sitting vice president po ay isang impeachable officer,” Padilla said.
He cited Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which identifies the Vice President as an impeachable officer, and raised questions about whether criminal proceedings against a sitting impeachable official should proceed while the official remains in office.
Padilla also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, saying the prohibition against criminal cases involving the same acts that may constitute grounds for impeachment applies while an impeachable officer remains in office.
“Samakatuwid, maaaring umusad ang kasong kriminal laban sa vice president pagkatapos lang ng kanyang termino,” Padilla said.
Duterte recently posted ₱360,000 bail for three counts of grave threats involving President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Padilla acknowledged that the 1987 Constitution does not expressly state that the Vice President is immune from suit. However, he argued that the principle of immunity is intended to protect impeachable officials from cases that could interfere with their constitutional duties.
“Walang tahasang probisyon po sa 1987 Constitution na nagsasabing ang Vice President ay immune from suit. Gayunman, wala rin itong probisyong nagsasabi na hindi siya saklaw ng immunity,” he said.
He further argued that the same principle applied to the President should also extend to the Vice President, who is likewise an impeachable officer and is constitutionally designated as the President’s successor.
Padilla also cited Duterte v. House of Representatives, saying the Supreme Court recognized that impeachable officers enjoy a certain degree of protection against what it described as malicious or bothersome suits that could disrupt the performance of their constitutional duties.
The senator then asked the Senate to clarify its position on the matter, saying the issue has caused confusion among the public.
“Ginoong Pangulo, ang minorya ay nagtatanong, ano po ba ang posisyon ng Senado?” Padilla said.
“Kailangan po nating malinawan ito dahil nahahati po ang ating mga kababayan sa nangyayaring ito. Hindi po ito nakakatulong sa atin,” he added.
Padilla emphasized that he was seeking clarification from the Senate amid the ongoing impeachment proceedings, saying members of the minority were themselves uncertain about the proper legal treatment of the criminal complaints against the sitting Vice President.
