Doctrine of operative fact

The Supreme Court (SC) can still correct itself and reverse its unanimous ruling in voiding and dismissing the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. The High Court’s 13-0-2 ruling can still be undone, according to ex-SC justices themselves and constitutionalists, who were of the opinion it was apparently based on flawed information.

Retired senior associate justice Antonio Carpio and former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman and ex-member of the 50-man Constitutional Commission Christian Monsod echoed these common views. To this end, Carpio and Monsod asked the 15-man High Court headed by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo to “revisit” and review their impugned decision to dismiss the impeachment case against VP Sara. Both also noted the SC did not even hold any oral arguments before they handed down the ruling on July 25.

The High Court ruling enumerated several constitutional infirmities in the fourth impeachment complaint voted and transmitted on the same day on Feb. 5 a few hours before the 19th Congress adjourned. Thus, the SC declared that the Senate and the House of Representatives of the 20th Congress have no jurisdiction to proceed with the impeachment trial of VP Sara. But the SC hastened to add this ruling did not in any way exonerate VP Sara. In fact, the High Court advised a new impeachment complaint can be filed on Feb. 6, 2026 or thereafter.

The SC acted on the petitions of VP Sara herself filed on Feb. 18 and separate similar petitions initiated later by pro-Duterte groups that sought to nullify and dismiss the fourth impeachment case as void ab initio, or void from the start.

At the Kapihan sa Manila Bay news forum last Wednesday, both Carpio and Monsod agreed that the High Court will be able to revisit this controversial ruling as soon as the Lower House submits their Motion for Reconsideration (MR). As the complainants in the fourth impeachment complaint, the House leadership earlier announced they will file MR to the SC.

“I would think that the Senate should just hold in abeyance any action because it’s not yet final. Normally, you act when it’s already final. Because there’s a chance, because it’s not yet final, there’s still a chance it could be reversed or changed because there’s a motion for reconsideration,” Carpio cited.

“I hope the Supreme Court will study well the motion for reconsideration and what is the effect on the people of postponing any impeachment complaint for one year,” Monsod pointed out.

The 24-man Senate earlier reached a consensus to vote whether or not to proceed with the impeachment trial on their legislative session on Aug. 6. The senators arrived at this consensus during their closed-door caucus conducted last Monday before the opening of the first regular session of the 20th Congress.

Re-elected as Senate President, Francis Escudero justified the new date in order to give each senator enough time to study the SC’s 97-page decision. Originally, the senators contemplated to resume next week the Senate impeachment trial which they suspended when the 19th Congress adjourned sine die last June 11.

The first three impeachment cases against VP Sara were filed at the House one after the other in December last year. However, all three cases were archived by the House on the same day on Feb. 5 after 215 House members voted to replace it with the fourth impeachment case. The House claimed all first three complaints were purportedly consolidated in the seven Articles of Impeachment in the new version of the case.

The High Court ruled such archiving effectively dismissed the first three impeachment cases. Hence, the one-year ban started from then on. But this was not the case, Carpio and Monsod argued vehemently. Carpio and Monsod insisted that the SC erred on this score, both on facts and interpretation of the constitutional one-year bar.

From the 26-page Congressional Record of the Feb. 5 House session, Carpio noted the House voted for the fourth impeachment case at 3:37 p.m. and the Senate received the same at 4:57 p.m. before the House adjourned at 7:27 p.m.

“That means the fourth impeachment complaint was approved by the House and transmitted to the Senate before the House adjourned, which adjournment marked the start of the one-year bar rule,” Carpio explained.

Still, Carpio remains worried that the new impeachment complaint may face the same debacles unless the SC corrects their July 25 ruling. Both Carpio and Monsod also were one in saying the SC ruling in favor of VP Sara is not a lost cause yet, even if the SC will eventually uphold its original unanimous ruling.

“I think there are options open to people, and that’s why we have an ombudsman… What can you bring up to the ombudsman? Something that’s illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient,” Monsod pointed out.

“Do not underestimate the people,” Monsod stressed.

Monsod underscored the ombudsman is empowered by the Constitution to investigate any erring government officials. And this includes SC justices all the way to the President and the Vice President that the ombudsman can conduct in the performance of its fact-finding mandate to get to the bottom of the truth, Monsod explained. But since the ombudsman cannot file complaints, its fact-finding report can be used as basis for impeachment complaint or any criminal and administrative cases, according to him.

For Carpio, he advised the pro-impeachment groups “to wait for six months” to initiate a new impeachment complaint.

Monsod, however, reminded the SC justices on the “doctrine of operative fact” should they stand on their dismissing VP Sara’s impeach case despite existing jurisprudence.

From Google, “the Doctrine of Operative Fact is an exception to the general rule that an unconstitutional law has no legal effect. It holds that acts done in accordance with a law before it was declared unconstitutional may still be considered valid and have legal consequences. This is because the past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.”

In layman’s language, it is prospective application of the new doctrine set.