PhilConsa Calls for Supreme Court Review on Impeachment Case
MANILA, Philippines — The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) has called on the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling declaring the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional. The group stressed that undeniable facts should stand firm regardless of the circumstances.
In a detailed four-page statement penned by PhilConsa chair and retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the organization highlighted concerns about the procedural handling of the decision. They also criticized the imposition of seven new rules on the House of Representatives set forth by the Supreme Court.
“Decisions of the Supreme Court that rearrange the particles of the principle of separation of power, redefine the limits of power of government or change the calculus of the balance of power between and among the three (3) branches of our government demand their strictest scrutiny for the slightest of error can bring about a tyrannicide that will incinerate our Constitution,” the statement emphasized.
Disputing the Supreme Court’s Role and Facts
On July 25, the Supreme Court declared the impeachment case against Duterte unconstitutional, citing the “one-year” rule as a bar. However, the Court’s spokesperson clarified that this ruling does not dismiss all charges against the vice president.
PhilConsa pointed out that the Supreme Court appeared to act as a finder of facts in two cases, a role that is traditionally reserved for trial courts and the Court of Appeals. The Court’s primary function is to interpret the law, not to re-examine evidence or facts.
The group further noted that the cases, filed separately by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon against the House of Representatives, were brought directly to the Supreme Court. These cases involved highly disputed facts, some of which PhilConsa labeled as questionable.
For example, the Court’s reliance on the alleged failure of the House to timely endorse the Fourth Impeachment Complaint to the Senate was challenged. Critics of the decision argued that some facts were based on unverified news reports and hearsay, which PhilConsa stressed should not be accepted as evidence since hearsay denies due process to the affected party.
“We therefore urge the Supreme Court to review the salient facts it relied upon in its Decision to make sure the facts speak the truth, for only a Decision based on indubitable facts can stand time and its vicissitudes,” the organization said.
Concerns Over New Rules Imposed on the House
PhilConsa also expressed deep concern that the Supreme Court’s ruling violated Article XI (3) of the Constitution. This article grants the House of Representatives the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, marking the initiation as a political process.
“Hence, in the initiation process, the members of the House are responsible only to the people who elected them,” the statement said.
The organization explained that if the House mishandles the initiation process and the Senate subsequently dismisses the impeachment complaint, the only penalty the members face is losing reelection. This reflects the political nature of impeachment initiation and limits judicial interference.
PhilConsa warned that the Supreme Court’s newly imposed rules risk stripping the House of Representatives of its constitutional authority to start impeachment cases. They questioned the legality of requiring due process for the respondent at the stage when a verified complaint or resolution is filed by at least one-third of House members.
“[T]he right of respondent to due process should be invoked in the Senate Impeachment Court when respondent goes to trial. The trial stage is the legal component of the impeachment process,” the group clarified.
For more news and updates on impeachment case ruling, visit Filipinokami.com.
