MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court’s ruling on the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte has raised concerns about constitutional adherence and political accountability. The highest court declared the impeachment complaint “unconstitutional,” preventing the Senate from gaining jurisdiction over the proceedings. This Supreme Court impeachment case decision has sparked a heated debate among legal experts and advocates.
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) criticized the ruling, arguing it departs from the Constitution’s clear provisions. They stressed that under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the House of Representatives can initiate impeachment through two valid methods: either by referring a verified complaint to the Committee on Justice, or by direct filing by at least one-third of House members, which automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment.
In Duterte’s case, four complaints were filed. The first three were listed in the Order of Business but never referred to the Committee on Justice. The fourth complaint, signed by 215 lawmakers—more than one-third of the House—was adopted by the plenary and sent to the Senate before Congress adjourned on February 5. According to NUPL, this action initiated the impeachment process as mandated by the Constitution.
Legal Issues in Supreme Court Impeachment Case Decision
However, the Supreme Court concluded that the earlier complaints were “deemed dismissed” after Congress adjourned, triggering a one-year bar against new impeachment complaints. NUPL contends this is a misinterpretation of the impeachment timeline and the Constitution itself. They pointed out that initiation requires both filing and referral to the Committee on Justice, which did not happen for the first three complaints.
Without referral, the complaints were never truly initiated; hence, there could be no dismissal. Congressional adjournment or archiving cannot fix this constitutional flaw. Labeling unacted complaints as “initiated and dismissed” grants legal effect to what the Constitution does not recognize, effectively blocking impeachment proceedings that never began.
Departure from Previous Supreme Court Precedent
NUPL referenced the 2003 Francisco v. House of Representatives case, where the Court ruled that the one-year bar on filing impeachment complaints starts only after proper initiation through referral to the Committee on Justice. This ruling balanced preventing harassment from multiple complaints while respecting the House’s exclusive power to initiate impeachment.
In contrast, the current Supreme Court impeachment case decision ignores the necessity of referral, treating unacted complaints as fully initiated and dismissed. This undermines the constitutional safeguard that ensures complaints are thoroughly reviewed before triggering impeachment.
Right to Respond and Judicial Overreach
The Court also ruled that the House erred by not providing Duterte with the Articles of Impeachment or an opportunity to reply before transmission to the Senate. Yet, the Constitution does not require this under Section 3(4). It explicitly states that once one-third of House members file a complaint, it becomes the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate trial must proceed. The Vice President’s chance to respond remains before the Senate, which acts as the impeachment court.
The NUPL further cautioned that while the judiciary must interpret the Constitution, it should not interfere with the House’s exclusive authority to initiate impeachment. Judicial review must be vigilant but restrained to maintain the delicate balance of power among branches. Overstepping this boundary risks disrupting the constitutional order.
Implications of the Supreme Court Impeachment Case Decision
The union lamented that the ruling benefits Vice President Duterte, who they describe as long protected by political influence and patronage. They emphasized that the Constitution was designed to hold even the most powerful accountable, preventing impunity and ensuring justice.
“Constitutional powers must be safeguarded, especially to uphold accountability,” the NUPL stated. They warned that procedural interpretations that stretch the Constitution’s clear meaning not only harm institutional balance but also undermine the public’s right to demand responsibility from leaders.
Ultimately, they stressed that the people will remember what was lost: the clear assertion of their right to hold high officials accountable.
For more news and updates on Supreme Court impeachment case decision, visit Filipinokami.com.
