ASEANEWS HEADLINE-COURTS & CRIME| MANILA: SC junks House appeal on Sara impeachment
WATCH VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6b5hr6X
Supreme Court affirms Sara Duterte impeachment unconstitutional | ANC
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld its ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule, denying with finality the motion for reconsideration of the House of Representatives.
Court spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said 14 justices voted on the ruling, with Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa abstaining and Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh unavailable as she was on leave.
.
 |
In its plea for the SC to reconsider its ruling, the House argued that the fourth impeachment complaint against the Vice President was not yet covered by the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) of the Constitution.
The fourth impeachment complaint had been endorsed by one-third of House members and transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 6.
“We thank the Honorable Court for a ruling that now definitively lays down clear and authoritative guidance on the constitutional limits and proper treatment of impeachment proceedings,” Duterte’s camp said in a statement.
“With these issues settled by the Court, the matter is now closed. We should then move on to address the nation’s other pressing concerns,” it added.
But Rene Sarmiento, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, called the SC decision a “judicial intrusion.”
In July last year, the SC voided the impeachment proceedings against Duterte on grounds of due process, particularly the one-year bar rule, which states that
“impeachment proceedings cannot be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
.
|
|
Duterte faced four impeachment complaints before the House of Representatives – the first three of which were filed by several groups while the fourth one was endorsed by one-third of the House members through a resolution.
The first three were lodged under Article XI, Section 3(2) while the House’s complaint was filed under Section 3(4) via a verified resolution signed by at least one-third of House members.
The high court ruled that the first three complaints were “archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed” on Feb. 5, 2025, meaning no new complaint can be initiated until after Feb. 6, 2025.
The SC ruled that the one-year ban is counted from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or otherwise rendered no longer viable.
It also reminded the House of Representatives that such complaints must be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days from endorsement, and that the Constitution does not grant discretion to the House Speaker or Secretary General to delay this.
The SC said the Constitution’s limits on impeachment are meant to prevent its abuse for political ends and ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly, lawfully, and with full respect for the rights of the accused.
No violation of 1-year bar
In its motion for reconsideration, the House of Representatives argued that the fourth impeachment complaint did not violate the one-year bar rule since it first acted on it and transmitted it to the Senate, prompting the termination or archiving of the first three complaints.
It also said it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official and the Senate’s to try the case.
However, in its latest ruling, the SC said the first three impeachment complaints had not been placed in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days, noting that session days do not mean legislative session days but rather a calendar day in which the House of Representatives hold a session.
With this, the three complaints had been deemed initiated for purposes of the one-year bar when they were not placed in the Order of Business within 10 session days or referred to the House committee on justice after being put in the Order of Business within three session days.
While the SC affirmed the power of the House of Representatives to promulgate its own rules on impeachment, it clarified that Section 2 of House Rules – as it is currently worded – requires the referral to the committee on justice even when filed through the second mode, which is the endorsement of at least one-third of the members of the lower chamber of Congress.
This, it said, is to ensure that the endorsement is verified, to confirm that the evidence exists and that every member of the House had been given a copy of the complaint as well as the evidence, and out of respect to the committee’s prerogative to consolidate different forms of the complaint, if any.
The SC also affirmed that due process of law applies to the impeachment process.
“The phrase ‘right to life, liberty, or property’ should not be read with undue literalism. It must be accorded reasonable flexibility to achieve its intent of protecting inherent and inalienable rights that could not have been exhaustively articulated at the time of its framing,” it said.
.
|
|
“The due process clause embodies the fundamental constitutional commitment to reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. It envisions that we cannot have a true democratic and republican/representative state that is arbitrary and unfair,” it added.
The high tribunal also noted that the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment should be done in plenary session of the House of Representatives, providing all House members with full copies of the complaint and its accompanying evidence.
Transmittal to the Senate, however, requires only a vote of one-third of its members for the first mode of initiating a complaint, or – for the second mode – proof of endorsement of a complaint by one-third of its members.
The SC said the resolution is immediately executory upon digital transmission to all parties and no further pleadings would be allowed.
Emasculated
In an interview with “Storycon” on One News, Sarmiento said the SC decision has “dulled” the impeachment process.
“It appears it has been emasculated and modified by the Supreme Court decision,” Sarmiento explained.
Sarmiento warned that impeachment—a tool equipped in the Charter to exact accountability against rogue public officers—would now be harder. “The rules set forth are very stringent and very strict,” he said.
.
|
|
With the House confronted by new impeachment complaints not only against the Vice President but also the President, lawmakers must adjust their rules to abide by the new rules.
“They have to adopt the seven new guidelines set by the Supreme Court. We have no choice but to comply as a matter of constitutional process,” Sarmiento said. — Bella Cariaso, EJ Macababbad
.
.
