SC decision on impeach rap makes accountability 'almost impossible' —Ex-SC Justice Azcuna
The Supreme Court (SC) decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional makes the accountability procedure for public officials impossible to carry out, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said.
"The new rules of the Supreme Court in its decision, unless reconsidered, would add a plethora of requirements ranging from prior notice and hearing, to attaching the evidence, to requiring proof that the Representatives read and understood the charges and the supporting evidence. All these will effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure," he said in a social media post.
"Furthermore, if allowed to stand, it will to my mind effectively amend —and, God forbid, derail— the Constitution which even the Supreme Court has no power to do," added Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.
On July 25, the high court released a decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Duterte unconstitutional.
It ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The SC said the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint.
Azcuna said, "the principal casualty" of the SC ruling "applying new rules on impeachment is the principle of accountability."
"As most impartial observers agree, the Supreme Court's newly pronounced definition of 'initiate,' contrary to its own prevailing definition, would not only be unfair if applied retroactively, but would even as applied prospectively, unduly constrain the House of Representatives in the exercise of its exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,' Azcuna added, referring to Article 11, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution.
According to the former magistrate, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have "constituent powers."
He referred to this as the House's power to initiate all impeachment cases and the Senate's power to try and decide the same.
"The cardinal rule in regard to constituent powers is that where the Constitution puts it, there it should be."
"The Supreme Court cannot be to craft the rules to enforce Article XI of the Constitution. The reason for this is because the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one's own case," Azcuna said.
Azcuna said the Vice President's right to due process was not violated by the House in filing the impeachment complaint because the official was not deprived of life, liberty or property as stated in the Bill of Rights.
'Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules in all phases of impeachment? None,' he said.
'Public office is a public trust. It is not a property owned by the occupant. The principles of due process therefore do not strictly apply to protect its occupants from scrutiny and possible removal,' he added.
The House is set to appeal the SC ruling, arguing that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints is not considered as initiation as provided under two previous Supreme Court rulings in the Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. House cases. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
_2025_08_02_18_07_56.png&w=3840&q=100)
GMA Network
10 hours ago
- GMA Network
Marcos transfers Sulu to Region IX following SC decision on BARMM
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has moved Sulu to Region IX, also known as the Zamboanga Peninsula, after the Supreme Court (SC) ruled last year that the province is not a part of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). Signed on July 30, Marcos' Executive Order 91 said there was an ''urgent need to effectively implement and address the impacts'' of the SC ruling, ''including the regional affiliation of the Province of Sulu, while continuing to ensure the uninterrupted governmental operations and delivery of essential government projects, programs, and activities within Sulu.'' He directed all national government agencies to include Sulu under Region IX for regional administration, development planning, investment programming and budgeting, and other relevant purposes. Marcos also established a technical working group (TWG) headed by the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management. The TWG's functions are to oversee and monitor the implementation of the SC decision, prepare and release a transition plan, address any issues or concerns arising from the SC ruling, request assistance from relevant agencies in implementing the EO, and submit an annual report to the Office of the President. Last September, the SC upheld the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL), but it also declared that Sulu should not have been included in the BARMM. Sulu rejected the ratification of the BOL during the plebiscite in 2019. —VBL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
15 hours 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
a day 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
