HOWIE SEE IT: Archived, who wins?

By Atty. Howie Calleja

Archiving a case, particularly in a legislative context, signifies more than a mere pause; it represents a strategic decision to set aside an issue without rendering a definitive judgment. In the recent impeachment complaint case, the Senate’s decision to archive the matter reflects a complex interplay of legal, procedural, and political considerations. This move—taken in light of the Supreme Court’s July 25 ruling—raises critical questions about the case’s future and the accountability of Vice President Sara Duterte.

In legislative or parliamentary terms, archiving means putting a case aside without dismissing it outright. It is not an assessment of guilt or innocence but rather a procedural step that removes the issue from immediate consideration. Such a decision is often influenced by factors including legal challenges, procedural hurdles, and political calculations.

The archiving of the impeachment case presents two possible scenarios, each dependent on the Supreme Court’s next move. If the Court upholds its initial decision, the impeachment complaint will remain unconstitutional. The archived case stays inactive, effectively stalling any further proceedings. A Senate trial will not occur, and the House of Representatives must wait a year before refiling the complaint. In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision becomes final and immediately enforceable—marking the end of the road for the case in its present form.

If, however, the Supreme Court reverses its earlier ruling and grants the Motion for Reconsideration (MR), the impeachment complaint would be revived as valid. The Senate could then unarchive the case and proceed to trial, potentially leading to an impeachment trial for VP Duterte. The critical question remains: Will the Supreme Court reverse itself? The answer will significantly shape the trajectory of the impeachment case.

The decision to archive rather than dismiss also reflects deep divisions within the Senate. Supporters of VP Duterte pushed for outright dismissal to bury the case and shield her from accountability, while minority senators sought to uphold the Senate’s integrity and independence by pursuing a trial.

Debates on the motion to dismiss—highlighted by the exchanges between Senator Marcoleta and Senator Sotto—underscore the situation’s complexity. Senator Sotto, though not a lawyer, skillfully dismantled the motion to dismiss, reflecting the maturity and depth of the Senate’s deliberations.

Archiving: A Middle Ground? Archiving can be seen as a compromise. While it does not advance the impeachment process, it avoids outright dismissal. The case remains on the Senate’s records—neither buried nor dead—set aside for possible future action.

Ultimately, archiving the impeachment case represents a strategic pause, recognizing that the final decision has yet to be made. It is not a sign of disrespect to the Supreme Court but an acknowledgment of the need to resolve all legal questions before proceeding. Archiving does not declare the impeachment process over; instead, it keeps a small light on the horizon, waiting for the chance to shine brighter in the future. The nation now waits and watches, hoping the outcome will serve the cause of justice and accountability.