SC ruling may lead to sham impeachment complaints, legal experts warn
Last week, the Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte "unconstitutional," saying their filing violated Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which states that "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."
Four impeachment complaints had been filed in the House. The first three impeachment complaints were filed in December 2024, and were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025, when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint.
According to a 24 Oras report by Joseph Morong, in its decision the Supreme Court held that the unacted-on complaints, which were not referred to the House Committee on Justice, already marked the start of impeachment proceedings.
According to the Supreme Court, the fourth complaint, which was adopted and transmitted to the Senate on the same day, therefore violated the one-year bar rule.
Lawyer Rene Sarmiento, a framer of the 1987 Constitution, criticized the Court's reversal of its previous ruling that an impeachment complaint is only considered initiated once it is referred to the House Committee on Justice.
Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio also called out the decision:
"The people did not know that there was this requirement because there was no requirement like this. You cannot make it retroactive, it should be prospective—'yun ang doctrine of operative fact. If there is a new requirement, you cannot say, 'Uy, bakit hindi mo sinunod ito?' Eh paano mo isunod na wala nga 'yun, it did not exist at the time."
(You cannot say, 'Why didn't you follow this rule?' You can't hold people accountable for a rule that didn't exist when the action happened.)
Critics also slammed the part of the decision that stated Duterte was denied due process, and laid out new procedural requirements that had not been previously imposed.
'Ang sabi ngayon ng Supreme Court, it cannot be an ex parte hearing, it has to be an actual hearing and that will require time. Kapos ka sa oras and that was never intended and nobody knew that there was such a requirement,' Carpio said.
(The Supreme Court now says it can't be an ex parte hearing—it needs a full hearing, which takes time. That was never required before.)
UP Law Assistant Professor Paolo Tamase backed these concerns, pointing out that even the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona proceeded without such requirements.
"Hindi rin naman nagkaroon ng hearing doon at hindi rin naman kinwestiyon 'yun… Pareho lang circumstances niya, kaya mahirap paliwanagan kung bakit iba yung mga patakaran ngayon," he said.
(There was no hearing then, and no one questioned it. The circumstances are the same, so it's hard to explain why the rules are suddenly different.)
The legal group 1Sambayan also challenged the Court's timeline, arguing that House records show the fourth complaint was acted on and adopted first, before the earlier three were archived. Thus, they claim the one-year bar should not apply to it.
"If anything, ang dapat tamaan ng one-year bar rule ay 'yung tatlo na inihain na nauna supposedly at hindi 'yung finile ng House of Representatives," Tamase said.
(If anything, the one-year bar should apply to the earlier three, not the one officially filed and adopted by the House.)
The House of Representatives has announced it will appeal the Supreme Court's ruling, citing procedural and factual errors.
Tamase warned that the ruling might be abused:
"Seryoso siya na problema dito sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Maghahain siya ng mga sham complaints upang magsimula 'yung one-year bar rule. Kung hindi aksyunan ng House kasi clear naman na sham 'yung complaint, parang napagdesisyunan na rin at nagsisimula na 'yung one-year bar rule."
(This is a serious problem with the Court's decision. Anyone can file sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. Even if the House doesn't act because it's clearly a sham, the clock starts running anyway.)
In response, the Supreme Court clarified in its decision that baseless or unendorsed complaints should be immediately dismissed and would not trigger the one-year ban.
"Obviously, sham complaints, for example, those that are not verified, should be dismissed immediately, even if endorsed. Complaints that are not properly endorsed by a member of the House of Representatives within a reasonable period should also be dismissed. These types of dismissals will not trigger the one-year ban,' it said. — Sherylin Untalan/BM, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
12 minutes ago
- GMA Network
Defying SC ruling on VP Sara's impeachment erodes legal order —IBP
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Saturday called for adherence to the Supreme Court's ruling that declared the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. In a statement, the IBP said that calls to defy the ruling of the High Court "erode the very foundations of the legal order." "Such actions disturb the equilibrium of powers and imperil the integrity of our democratic institutions, especially when appropriate legal remedies remain available within the framework of our constitutional system," the IBP said. "The Constitution does not require agreement. It demands adherence," emphasized the IBP. The IBP maintained its commitment to the constitutional order, which limits the powers of the branches of government, defining their roles and demanding their accountability. "To uphold the Constitution is to uphold each of its mandates equally-whether judicial, legislative, or executive. We therefore recognize and respect the exclusive power of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment, just as we acknowledge the Supreme Court's solemn duty to interpret the Constitution and resolve legal uncertainties in faithful service to the Republic," said the IBP. The IBP also said that, "as the final arbiter of constitutional questions, the Supreme Court bears the solemn duty to interpret the law, determine its bounds, and clarify its implications even when it revisits past doctrines or addresses new contexts." Moving forward Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio earlier said that there is still a possibility that the Supreme Court will reverse its decision declaring the articles of impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional. Carpio said this, hinging on the plan of the House of Representatives to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC decision as the lower chamber argued that the ruling was based on incorrect findings that contradict official records. 'Theoretically, pwede [it's possible]. I mean, there's no rule or law, constitutional provision that say that they [cannot] correct themselves,' Carpio said in a forum. According to the former SC associate justice, there had been many instances in the past when the high court 'completely reversed itself.' Further, constitutional law expert Atty. Domingo "Egon" Cayosa said the Senate may opt to proceed with the trial of Duterte despite the Supreme Court's decision. Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros had said a draft resolution is being circulated containing former justices' advice on how the Senate should proceed following the Supreme Court ruling declaring the articles of impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional. However, Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said 19 to 20 senators are likely to adhere to the decision of the SC. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
16 hours ago
- GMA Network
UP Law faculty members: Congress vested with prerogatives on impeachment
Individual faculty members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law on Friday expressed "grave concern" on the developments regarding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, stressing that Congress is empowered with "high prerogatives" on the impeachment process. Signed by over 80 legal experts as of August 1, the five-page joint statement of the UP Law faculty members warned that the Supreme Court decision which declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional has "consequences" that create an "incentive" for filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. "We express our conviction that Congress is constitutionally vested with high prerogatives and thus deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment. At the very least, given the House's reliance on two decades of precedents and practices, any new rules should be prospective in application," the statement read. It added, "We call on our democratic institutions to act in accordance with these fundamental principles, and to foster a full public debate on the impeachment in keeping with constitutional accountability," it added. Voting 13-0-2, the SC declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The first three impeachment complaints were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint, the SC ruled. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC added that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. "We the undersigned individual members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of law, express our grave concern with the developments in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte," the statement read. "[W]e warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials," it added. 'Permanent' change The faculty members noted that impeachments are "decided only upon the simple question" of whether or not the official should continue to be entrusted with public office. Since the consequence is not civil damages nor imprisonment but removal from public office, they said, elected representatives are the ones to decide on the outcome. Noting that the Constitution provides that the House has the "exclusive power to initiate" and that the Senate has the "sole power to try and decide" all cases of impeachment, the faculty members said they share the view of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) that "over-judicialization" of the process, meaning court-like procedures are laid down for Congress, "will permanently change impeachment's nature." They also argued that the House merely followed rules set by the Supreme Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, which defined initiation of impeachment complaint as filing the impeachment complaint before the House and referring it to the chamber's committee on justice. "This could not be an abuse of discretion, much less a grave one," the faculty members said. Any changes should be applied moving forward, they said, and not in Duterte's impeachment case. "If the Court intended to lay out new rules for the House, then the 'reliance of the public thereto prior to their being declared unconstitutional' calls for at least a prospective application of its decision and not the nullification of the House's actions," they said. Compliance by the House Further, they said judicial review is only for cases where there is abuse, but not in the Vice President's case because the House complied with rules previously set by the high tribunal. Likewise, the UP College of Law Faculty members backed former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who had warned that the High Court's decision on the Duterte case contradicts the Constitution's intent to make impeachments easier to initiate. "The Duterte ruling has consequences that the parties themselves did not appear to contemplate," they said, noting that the plenary now has the power to block resolutions for impeachment. "The ruling creates an incentive for the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule—a political strategy once criticized by a justice as making 'a mockery of the power of impeachment.' Narrower rulings in the past have precisely avoided these unintended consequences," they said. Due process Further, the faculty members said the House did not violate the right of the Vice President to due process because the Senate impeachment court is the proper venue to defend herself as provided by the Constitution. "While Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution requires the 'rights of persons appearing in, or affected by' legislative inquiries 'shall be respected,' no similar rule applies in Article 11, Section 3 on impeachment. Impeachment has thus never required the observance of due process that applies to administrative proceedings: the impeachment trial is itself the due process," they said. "This is not because the Constitution intended to be oppressive towards a respondent. Instead, and following congressional practice, the right to be heard of an impeachable officer is honored in the trial before the Senate," they added. Finally, the UP College of Law faculty members said that unlike in legal proceedings, the principal aim of impeachment is not to litigate a right of the impeachable officer, but to protect the public and enforce accountability. "A reading of the Constitution to further accountability requires a return to the paradigm of protecting the people and a reiteration of the principle that public office is a public trust—a sacred privilege, not a god-given right," they said. "As academics, our only client is the truth. And while the course of Vice President Duterte's impeachment has veered further away from discovering it, we write with hope that our democratic institutions will, with statesmanship and prudence, allow us, the people, to eventually find our way towards restoring accountability," they added. — Llanesca T. Panti/ VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
18 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC asked to reconsider VP Sara Duterte impeachment ruling
Former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita 'Ging' Deles, Yvonne Jereza of Magdalo Partylist, and Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudia, convenor of Tindig Pilipinas, filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court on Friday, August 1, 2025, on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. Photo by Danny Pata Some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam. 'Naniniwala po kami na maling-mali ang naging desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema (we believe that the reasons of the SC is very wrong),' petitioners Sylvia Estrada Claudio said in an ambush interview. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. The SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. However, Claudio said their complaint was not initiated. This was echoed by petitioner Teresita Quintos Deles, who said that the SC previously ruled that complaints are only initiated once deferred to the House Committee on Justice. 'By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case na sinabi na ang initiation ay kapag na defer lang sa Justice committee. Since hindi iyon nangyari, wala talagang prior initiation,' she said. (By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case where it was stated that initiation happens when it is merely deferred in the Justice committee. Since that did not happen, there was really no prior initiation.) The other petitioners are Akbayan Representative Percival Cendaña, Eugene Gonzales, Yvonne Jereza, Alicia Murphy, and Filomena Cinco. Claudio called on the Senate to continue the impeachment trial. 'Naniniwala din po kami na nag overstep ng kaunti ang ating SC dahil nag simula na ang Senado. At sa amin hong pananaw ay malinaw naman ho sa Konstitusyon na ang Senado ang may karapatan, at nag simula na po sila,' she said. (We also believe that our SC overstepped a bit because the Senate had already started. And in our view, it is clear in the Constitution that the Senate has the right, and they had already begun.) 'Sa atin pong mamamayan, nananawagan po kami na pwede naman pong i-criticize ang opinyon ng kahit sinong mataas na opisyal o institusyon, kasama na po ang SC,' she added. (To our fellow citizens, we are calling on you that it is okay to criticize the opinion of any high-ranking official or institution, including the SC.) — BAP, GMA Integrated News
