Supreme Court Ruling on Impeachment Sparks Democracy Debate
DAVAO CITY — The recent Supreme Court decision on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte has stirred strong reactions among Davao legal experts. Many see the ruling as a setback for democracy and accountability in the Philippines.
Lawyer Arvin Dexter Lopoz, spokesperson for the Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), voiced his concerns on social media. He criticized the ponencia authored by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, pointing out that it introduced additional hurdles to the impeachment process. These new requirements, he argued, make it even tougher for ordinary citizens to file impeachment complaints against officials who should be held accountable.
Rather than moving directly to an impeachment trial after securing the necessary support from over one-third of the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court’s recent decision now mandates that the impeachable official must be “given due process” and “notified” at the House level first.
“My take, then, is this: Impeachment by itself is a difficult process especially with the political nature of the entire exercise. (But t)he Leonen ponencia makes it now even harder or extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to hold impeachable officers accountable for their reprehensible and corrupt acts,” Lopoz said. “In the end, accountability loses. Our democracy loses.”
The UPLM is preparing an official statement to further address the issue.
Legal Experts Warn of Dangerous Loophole
Lawyer Romeo Cabarde, director of the Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy (Apila) Center, described the Supreme Court’s ruling as a redefinition of the constitutional impeachment requirements that could create a dangerous loophole. He noted that any impeachment complaint, even if baseless or ignored, could block valid complaints for an entire year.
“Such a precedent invites abuse,” Cabarde said. “A House leadership loyal to a sitting high-ranking public official could easily file and let die superficial complaints just to shield their ally from real accountability.”
At the heart of the controversy is the Court’s interpretation of what counts as the “initiation” of impeachment proceedings.
The Constitution clearly states, “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year” (Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5). Traditionally, as established in the landmark Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003) case, initiation occurs only when the complaint is referred to the House Committee on Justice.
However, the recent ruling took a puzzling turn by stating that simply including an impeachment complaint in the House Order of Business constitutes initiation—even if it is never referred to a committee. This, Cabarde argued, undermines decades of legal precedent and logic.
Implications for Future Impeachment Cases
Cabarde clarified that the first three impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte were archived. Only the fourth complaint, which had the support of 215 congressmen, was formally referred to the Committee on Justice and thus considered “initiated.”
Lopoz pointed to the Supreme Court’s prior decisions in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice as safeguards designed to prevent manipulation of the impeachment process.
These rulings were meant to stop impeachable officials from exploiting the system by having allies file bogus complaints. Such tactics would trigger the one-year prohibition rule, effectively shielding the official from genuine investigations for that period.
“Impeachment cannot be a mere case of gamesmanship. The Leonen ponencia opens the door to bogus complaints, endorsed by a political ally of the impeachable officer at the House of Representatives, to be mandatorily calendared and considered initiated even without referral to the Committee on Justice!” Lopoz said. “So now, whoever files first, no matter how weak and bogus the verified complaint is, as long as it is endorsed by a member, it counts.”
Lopoz emphasized that true democracy depends on accountability. Unfortunately, he believes the recent Supreme Court ruling has weakened both.
For more news and updates on impeachment case, visit Filipinokami.com.
