THE Philippine Constitution Association Inc. (Philconsa) has urged the Supreme Court (SC) to revisit its ruling that declared the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
In a statement signed by Philconsa chairperson and retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the group said the Supreme Court imposed new rules for initiating impeachment, effectively granting itself undue power to “deprive the House of its exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,” in violation of Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which grants that authority solely to the House of Representatives.
The group noted that the High Court is “not a trier of facts” and is mandated to interpret the law only when the facts have already been established.
“We call on the Supreme Court to avoid the political thicket, where there are too many unknowns and unknowables, and thus avoid the tyranny of intangibles,” Philconsa said.
“We therefore urge the Supreme Court to review the salient facts it relied upon in its decision to make sure the facts speak the truth, for only a decision based on indubitable facts can stand time and its vicissitudes,” it added.
Philconsa also expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s ruling, which imposed seven new mandatory rules that the House of Representatives must follow when initiating an impeachment complaint.
It also underscored that the due process requirement for the House to attach sufficient evidence to the articles of impeachment and allow reasonable time to decide on endorsing the complaint could be used by the impeached official to elevate the matter to the High Court.
Philconsa said these requirements effectively gave the Supreme Court the power to determine both the sufficiency of evidence and the reasonableness of the time given to House members to reach an independent decision.
“It tilted the balance of power in its favor. It runs counter to the advice that in interpreting the Constitution, the role of justices is to serve strictly as umpires. They should not act as pitchers or batters in favor of any party,” said Philconsa.
Puno reminded Supreme Court justices that the judiciary is prohibited from interfering in impeachment cases, which are political questions of principle.
He also urged the justices of the High Court to uphold the constitutional principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and accountability of public officials.
“The Court cannot minimalize this principle that prevents the Judiciary from exercising power that can overwhelm the other branches of the government. It is the guardrail against the evil of undue judicialization of politics by the unelected,” said Puno.
“Our Constitution is based on democracy and not on the monocracy of any branch of government. It will endure only if we are able to preserve the pristine principles of separation of power, checks and balances, accountability of officials, a public office is a public trust, and the sovereignty of the people from whom all powers of government emanate,” he added.
Congress responds
On February 5, the last session day before Congress went on a four-month break ahead of the May 2025 midterm elections, the House of Representatives impeached Duterte with the approval of over 250 members.
The chamber immediately submitted the seven Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, which went on recess without discussing them in plenary.
The complaint was the fourth impeachment case filed against Duterte before the House since December 2024.
Among the bases for the impeachment complaints were Duterte’s alleged involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., his wife, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez; the alleged malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education (DepEd) during her tenure as secretary from 2022 to 2024; and allegations of bribery and corruption within the DepEd.
Two petitions related to Duterte’s impeachment were filed before the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court—one seeking to compel the Senate to convene as an impeachment court and begin the trial, and another asking the Court to declare the impeachment complaint null and void.
During the hearing on June 10, when the Senate convened as an impeachment court for Duterte’s trial, the senator-judges approved the return of the complaints to the House of Representatives to clarify two points: that the complaint does not violate the constitutional rule prohibiting more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a year (Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5), and whether the 20th Congress of the lower chamber is willing to formally communicate to the Senate its readiness to pursue the impeachment case against the Vice President.
On July 25, the Supreme Court announced that 13 justices voted in favor of declaring the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, citing violations of the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights, as well as Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
The House of Representatives said it will file a motion for reconsideration of the SC’s decision.
House of Representatives Spokesperson Priscilla Marie “Princess” Abante said the ruling is based on incorrect factual findings that contradict the chamber’s official records.
Abante emphasized that the articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate following a plenary vote, and that the chamber had acted on the first three impeachment complaints by archiving them on the same day the articles were submitted.
“It should also be said, kung due process at opportunity to be heard ang usapan, ilang beses nang naimbitahan si Vice President Sara Duterte sa mga pagdinig ng Committee upang siya ay mabigyan ng pagkakataong ipaliwanag ang kaniyang panig, ngunit nananatiling tikom ang kaniyang bibig,” Abante said.
(It should also be noted that if the issue is due process and the opportunity to be heard, Vice President Sara Duterte has been invited several times to the Committee hearings to give her a chance to explain her side, yet she has remained silent.)
“It is for these reasons the House will be filing a motion for reconsideration. We remain hopeful that once facts are corrected, the Court will arrive at a different and more just conclusion,” she added.
Earlier, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero said the upper chamber would take action on the impeachment complaint against Duterte and the Supreme Court ruling on August 6, noting that the High Court’s decision is immediately executory.
Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, along with Senators Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, Bam Aquino, and Risa Hontiveros, signed a draft resolution appealing the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The resolution cited the opinion of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who said that while the decision may be legal, it was ultimately unfair. (TPM/SunStar Philippines)