PhilConsa calls on SC to revisit ruling on Sara Duterte impeachment
This was how the Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) described the Supreme Court ruling that barred the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte as it called on the High Court to revisit its decision and for the Senate impeachment court to proceed with the trial.
'This ruling invites dangerous abuse. It opens the door for impeachable officials—or their allies—to deliberately file weak or premature complaints to 'consume' the one-year window and block any real effort at accountability,' it said in a statement.
'This is not a safeguard against harassment—it is a blueprint for evasion,' it added.
PhilConsa is chaired by retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno.
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.
According to PhilConsa, the ruling overreached constitutional boundaries, disrupted the separation of powers, and weakened Congress' exclusive authority to hold impeachable officers accountable.
It stressed that that the SC previously held that impeachment is only deemed initiated after the complaint is found sufficient in form and substance and referred to the Committee on Justice.
'The earlier complaints never reached that stage. To treat them as having 'initiated' proceedings defies both logic and constitutional intent,' PhilConsa said.
Aside from this, PhilConsa argued that the doctrine of operative fact should have applied. It said the principle recognizes the legal effects of acts done in good faith under a law or process that was later declared unconstitutional.
PhilConsa said that the Senate has already convened as an impeachment court and that Duterte has filed her formal answer after being served summons.
'All these were done in good faith, based on long-standing jurisprudence and the clear text of the Constitution,' it said.
'To declare all those acts null and void—after the process had matured to the point of trial—is not only legally harsh, it is institutionally destabilizing. The doctrine exists precisely to prevent this outcome,' it added.
It said that invoking the doctrine does not violate due process as Duterte was given the opportunity to defend herself.
Meanwhile, PhilConsa said the SC should have acted with judicial restraint.
'This ruling, though perhaps well-intentioned, is a clear instance of judicial activism. It turns the Judiciary from a neutral guardian of the Constitution into an arbiter of congressional timing and internal processes—matters the Constitution never assigned to the courts,' it said.
'Judicial activism, if unchecked, becomes judicial supremacy. And that supremacy can, over time, paralyze the political departments that the people themselves empowered,' it added. —AOL, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
9 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
11 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
GMA Network
13 hours ago
- GMA Network
Banning online gambling must be studied thoroughly, says Palace
Malacañang on Friday said banning online gambling should be studied thoroughly, including its possible impacts to the country. During a press conference, Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said this matter should be studied carefully as this may affect even the licensed ones. She was reacting to the question about President Ferdinand ''Bongbong'' Marcos Jr. skipping online gambling during his fourth State of the Nation Address. ''So, dapat ito aralin mabuti ano ba ang dapat gawin dahil kapag nga tinanggal natin talaga agad-agad ang online gambling at maapektuhan naman iyong ibang mga lisensiyado, makakaapekto ba ito sa tulong sa bayan, sa tulong sa mga estudyante, sa tulong sa mga Pilipino? So, hindi po puwedeng magpadalus-dalos ang Pangulo dito. Dapat aralin po dahil sa totoo lamang po ang mga revenue po na ibinibigay ng lisensiyado na online gambling ay nakakapagbigay talaga ng tulong sa mamamayan,'' Castro said. (This should be studied carefully because if we remove this, those licensed ones will be affected and we have to determine if this will affect the assistance to the nation, to students, and to all Filipinos. So, the President cannot just decide on this. This should be studied as the revenues from licensed online gambling operations are helping the citizens.) ''So, dapat pong aralin at hindi po dapat na ora-orada at mag-uutos agad na tanggalin agad iyan, dapat inaaral po iyan. Iyang ganiyan po kasi, ang gusto ng Pangulo ay inaaral bago magpadalus-dalos sa aksiyon,'' she added. (This should be studied and it's not right to just prohibit this, this should be studied.) The Senate is set to hold an investigation regarding online gambling in the country, as announced by Senator Erwin Tulfo, chairman of the Senate games and amusement committee. Several other lawmakers have also called either for the total ban or strict regulation of online gambling, citing its negative impact on Filipinos who got addicted to it. PAGCOR Chairman Alejandro Tengco earlier noted that the gaming industry regulator recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ad Standards Council (ASC) to strengthen the monitoring of gambling-related advertisements across all platforms. It also recently ordered the takedown of all gambling ads in public spaces and primetime TV by August 15 this year. — BAP, GMA Integrated News
