Duterte’s Impeachment: A Closer Look at the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine political landscape has been abuzz with discussions about impeachment proceedings and the subsequent legal challenges filed in the Supreme Court. Among these cases is a petition for certiorari filed by the Vice President, seeking to halt or question the impeachment process arguing the one-year bar rule of the Philippine Constitution. The central question on many minds is: Will these cases prosper? To answer this, we must turn to the Philippine Constitution and the principles of separation of powers and judicial review.

The Constitutional Framework for Impeachment

The Philippine Constitution, in Article XI, Section 3, is clear: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” This provision establishes the Senate as the exclusive body responsible for conducting impeachment trials. Once the House of Representatives files articles of impeachment, the Senate takes over as the “court” that will hear the case and determine whether the impeached official should be removed from office.

This constitutional design reflects the principle of separation of powers, where each branch of government has distinct roles. The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, while the Senate serves as the judge. The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is generally not involved in this process unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

Why Is Impeachment in Article XI and Not in the Legislative Branch Provisions?

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) is a deliberate choice that reflects the unique nature and purpose of impeachment. There are various reasons such as the following:

1. Impeachment as a Check on Government Officials, Not a Legislative Function
   Impeachment is not an ordinary legislative function. While it involves Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), its purpose is not to create laws or policies but to hold high-ranking government officials accountable for serious offenses such as graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, or other high crimes. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the framers emphasized that impeachment is primarily a mechanism for accountability, not a routine legislative duty.
2. Separation of Powers and the Unique Role of Congress in Impeachment
   The Constitution divides the impeachment process between the two houses of Congress:
   • The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, initiating the impeachment process by filing charges.
     • The Senate acts as the court, conducting the trial and deciding whether to convict or acquit the impeached official.
       This division of roles within Congress is unique and does not fit neatly into the general legislative functions outlined in Article VI. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution highlights that this process is a special power granted to Congress, distinct from its ordinary lawmaking responsibilities.
3. Impeachment as a Safeguard for Public Accountability
   Article XI is titled “Accountability of Public Officers,” and its provisions focus on ensuring that public officials remain answerable to the people. Impeachment is one of the key mechanisms for enforcing this accountability, alongside other tools like the Ombudsman’s office and the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court). By situating impeachment in this article, the Constitution reinforces the idea that impeachment is not just a political process but a constitutional safeguard against abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
4. Avoiding Overlap with Ordinary Legislative Functions
   If the impeachment provisions were placed in Article VI (Legislative Department), it might create confusion or conflate impeachment with ordinary legislative activities. Impeachment is a quasi-judicial process, not a lawmaking one. By separating it into Article XI, the Constitution clarifies that impeachment is a special process with its own rules and procedures, distinct from the day-to-day work of Congress.
5. Historical and Comparative Context
   The placement of impeachment in a separate article is also consistent with the structure of other constitutions, such as the U.S. Constitution, which similarly places impeachment provisions in a distinct section (Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Sections 2 and 3). This reflects a broader constitutional tradition that treats impeachment as a unique and critical mechanism for maintaining the integrity of government.
6. Emphasizing the Gravity of Impeachment
   By isolating impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution underscores the gravity and solemnity of the process. Impeachment is not a routine political tool but a last resort for addressing serious misconduct by high-ranking officials. Its placement in a dedicated article highlights its importance as a constitutional remedy for preserving democracy and the rule of law.

The Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in the Philippines, has the power of judicial review. This means it can determine whether the actions of other government branches are consistent with the Constitution. However, this power is not unlimited. The Court has consistently held that it will not interfere in political questions—matters that the Constitution has assigned to other branches of government.

In the context of impeachment, the Supreme Court’s role is limited. It can only intervene if there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Grave abuse of discretion refers to actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the Constitution. Absent such abuse, the Supreme Court will defer to the Senate’s exclusive jurisdiction over impeachment trials.

Sara Duterte’s Petition: Why It Will Not Prosper

Earlier today, a petition filed by the Vice President argued that the impeachment violated the one-year bar rule stated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. However, the petition is unlikely to succeed based on established legal principles.

The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), clarified that impeachment proceedings are initiated when an impeachment complaint is both filed AND referred to the House Committee on Justice.

This means that once an impeachment complaint has been formally referred to the committee, no new impeachment complaint can be filed against the same official within one year.

Also, in their brief (page 17) it is stated that the initiation of impeachment occurs through both the filing AND the referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice.

Since the One-Year Bar Rule on Impeachment was not violated, her petition lacks merit. If the first impeachment complaint was filed but not referred or endorsed, it does not constitute an initiated impeachment proceeding. Without a violation of the one-year rule, there is no constitutional basis to challenge the subsequent impeachment complaint.

The Cases Filed in the Supreme Court

Several cases have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the impeachment process, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari. A petition for certiorari is a legal remedy used to challenge the actions of a government body, arguing that it acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

In these cases, the petitioners are likely arguing that the House of Representatives or the Senate violated constitutional procedures or acted unfairly in initiating or conducting the impeachment process. However, for these cases to succeed, the petitioners must prove that there was indeed grave abuse of discretion.

Will These Cases Prosper?

Based on the constitutional framework, the answer is likely no. My answer is premised in the following:

1. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Senate: The Constitution explicitly grants the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. This means that, as long as the Senate is acting within its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court cannot interfere.
2. Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion: Unless the petitioners can demonstrate that the House of Representatives or the Senate acted with grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court will likely dismiss the cases. The Court has historically been reluctant to intervene in impeachment proceedings, respecting the separation of powers.
3. Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court generally practices judicial restraint in political matters, especially when the Constitution has clearly assigned a specific role to another branch of government. Impeachment is a political process, and the Court is unlikely to overstep its bounds unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

The cases filed in the Supreme Court, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari, face an uphill battle. The Philippine Constitution clearly vests the Senate with the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and the Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere unless there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion. Barring such evidence, the Senate’s jurisdiction over the impeachment process will remain unchallenged, and the cases in the Supreme Court are unlikely to prosper.

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) reflects the framers’ intent to emphasize that impeachment is a special constitutional mechanism for ensuring accountability, not an ordinary legislative function. This arrangement reinforces the separation of powers, clarifies the unique roles of the House and Senate in the process, and highlights the gravity of impeachment as a safeguard against abuse of power by public officials. It is a deliberate choice that aligns with the broader principles of constitutional governance and public accountability.

As the impeachment proceedings unfold, the nation will be watching closely, not only to see how the political drama plays out but also to witness the resilience of the constitutional principles that underpin Philippine democracy.