‘Dangerous’: FLAG joins critics of SC ruling on Sara impeach raps
The oldest network of human rights lawyers in the country has added its voice to the controversy over the Supreme Court ruling on Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case, as it urged the high court to reconsider its decision declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional.
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on Tuesday called for “a longer period of reflection, deliberation and perhaps even debate” over the July 25 ruling.
“To our mind, the decision, if not reconsidered, creates a dangerous precedent that seriously undermines impeachment as the ultimate accountability mechanism” under the Constitution, the group said in a statement signed by its interim chair Theodore Te, a former spokesperson of the Supreme Court.
‘Validly filed’
FLAG is a legal group formed during the martial law era in defense of victims of human rights abuses. It continues to speak out on various issues, including the extrajudicial killings during Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency and the continuing incidents of Red-tagging under President Marcos.
The group maintained that the impeachment complaints against Duterte “were validly filed,” adding that these “should thus have been sufficient to … commence the duty of the Senate, as an impeachment tribunal, to ‘forthwith proceed’ with the trial of the Vice President.”
The Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that the complaints violated the one-year ban prescribed in the Constitution on their successive filing.
In a 13-0 decision, the high court noted that the first three complaints filed separately in December 2024 were deemed archived and dismissed on Feb. 5—the same day the House of Representatives, upon impeaching Duterte, transmitted a fourth complaint to the Senate.
“Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026,” the Supreme Court said.
The high court also laid down detailed due process requirements in impeachment proceedings, such as ensuring the respondent’s right to be heard and the submission of supporting evidence along with the transmitted complaint.
‘Over-judicializing’
But FLAG argued that the ruling was “over-judicializing a sui generis (unique) mechanism designed to exact accountability and to determine continuing fitness for public office at the highest levels.”
The group said the decision “effectively insulates all impeachable officials under the Constitution by rendering the filing of complaints unduly exacting and overly tedious.”
“In conflating impeachment as a ‘legal and constitutional process’ with principles of criminal law and administrative law, the Court has also departed from the very nature of the impeachment process which makes it substantially different from criminal law or any other branch of law, for that matter, thus its sui generis nature,” the group said.
‘Shooting for the moon’
The House on Tuesday reiterated its earlier position that it would appeal the ruling.
House spokesperson Princess Abante said the chamber plans to file its motion for reconsideration in two weeks, “even if it’s [shooting for] the moon.”
Duterte is accused of culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust. The complaint transmitted to the Senate cited, among others, her alleged misuse of confidential funds and her death threat against the President, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez. —WITH A REPORT FROM KRIXIA SUBINGSUBING
