Former justices question SC stand on Sara impeach raps
Former Supreme Court justices raised concerns over the tribunal’s unanimous decision voiding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, and a lawyer’s group warned that the ruling could distort constitutional safeguards and weaken accountability mechanisms for high officials.
While the court found the complaint unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban and lacking due process, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and retired Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna cautioned that the ruling imposed new interpretations that risk undermining the fairness and balance envisioned by the Constitution.
A human rights lawyers’ group also said that the decision was a “misreading of the impeachment timeline and a misapplication of the Constitution.”
In a 97-page ruling on two petitions questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment, the Court on Friday struck down the impeachment complaint endorsed by more than a third of House lawmakers, saying it violated the one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints. It faulted the House for failing to provide Duterte with the articles of impeachment or a chance to respond before sending the case to the Senate.
‘Initiate’ redefined
Azcuna said in a statement that the decision may be “legally correct,” but “rather unfair.”
He pointed out that the Court introduced a new definition of what it means to “initiate” an impeachment complaint. Citing a 2003 Francisco v. House of Representatives ruling, he said that a complaint is only considered initiated when it is referred to the House committee on justice.
“The new definition, however, would now cover a situation where the complaints were NOT referred to a committee and, after the lapse of the time to do so, archived, and thus, the Supreme Court said, ‘effectively dismissed,’” Azcuna said.
He said the House, relying on the old definition, acted within its rights when it adopted the fourth complaint and transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate. It would not be fair to retroactively apply the court’s new interpretation, Azcuna said.
“I respectfully submit that it would be unfair to apply this new definition to the complaint involved in the present case, as it was precisely adopted in reliance on the Supreme Court’s then prevailing definition,” he said.
Citing the same case, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) took a similar stance, saying the court “departed from the Constitution” by applying an interpretation of initiation not grounded in its plain text.
Unacted, unreferred
“Archiving or congressional adjournment does not cure this constitutional deficiency,” the NUPL said, noting that complaints that were never referred to the committee were never formally initiated.
“To treat unacted, unreferred complaints as having been ‘initiated and dismissed’ is to grant legal effect to what the Constitution does not recognize,” it added.
The group emphasized that under Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution, an impeachment complaint signed by at least one-third of House members automatically becomes the articles of impeachment and must proceed to trial, without the need to notify or hear from the respondent at that stage.
“The Vice President’s opportunity to respond is preserved before the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, as it always has been in our constitutional practice,” the NUPL said.
By imposing new procedural steps like prior furnishing and response, the Court risks obstructing the House’s exclusive power to initiate impeachment, the group said.
“The delicate balance of powers must be carefully maintained. Any departure from this equilibrium, however well-intentioned, risks disrupting the constitutional order,” NUPL added.
Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban urged respect for the ruling but questioned the speed and approach of the Court.
‘A rushed decision’
“Instead of issuing a rather rushed decision, I would have favored, if I were still an incumbent, the issuance of a status quo ante order,” he said, referring to a legal remedy that freezes proceedings while the Court deliberates.
Panganiban said he would have also called for oral arguments, especially given the weight of the issue. “If the Court had patiently heard Oral Argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case?” he asked.
He said this would have given the justices and the public a fuller view of the issues involved.
“After all, this case has transcendental importance to the nation and to our people,” he said.
Three separate impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December and a fourth in February, accusing her of, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust and misuse of over P600 million in confidential funds as Vice President and as education secretary. Critics pointed out that more than P125 million was spent in just 11 days.
She also threatened to assassinate President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez if an alleged plot to kill her succeeds.
The first three complaints were included in the House’s order of business but were never referred to committee. The fourth, signed by more than one-third of the House members, was adopted by the plenary and transmitted to the Senate for trial.
But the Supreme Court ruled that even unreferred and archived complaints count as “initiated” and “dismissed” once Congress adjourned, effectively barring any new complaints for a year, including the fourth.
The Court also said the House erred in not giving Duterte a chance to respond before transmission.
Panganiban said that the House may still file to the Supreme Court a motion for reconsideration or for clarification.
Carpio on House action
Even before the Supreme Court released its ruling, retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio had defended the handling of the impeachment case by the House, saying it “followed the Constitution to the letter.” He warned against the interference by the high court in what was “clearly a political process.”
Carpio pointed to the timeline of the House’s proceedings as proof of compliance with the Constitution, noting that the “overriding issue” in the petitions against the impeachment was the timing of the chamber’s actions.
“Thus, the House manifested that the first three impeachment complaints were included in the Order of Business on the 10th session day from the filing of the first impeachment complaint,” he said.
Carpio said that the verified resolution signed by more than one-third of House members was submitted also on the 10th session day, counted in accordance with House rules and session schedules. The backing of the required number of House members for the resolution automatically turned it into the articles of impeachment in accordance with the Constitution.
“The Constitution was followed. The threshold was met. The process was legal and complete. That should be the end of it,” Carpio said.
