Ched Rick Gatchalian

Vice President Sara Duterte holds a press conference with the media at the Office of the Vice President in Mandaluyong City on February 7, 2025. Duterte addressed the impeachment case filed against her by Congress, and also assured the public that her office would cooperate with the legal process while continuing to prioritize government programs and services. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News

Article (news)

Congress' constitutional authority over impeachment should be respected: UP Law faculty

ABS-CBN News

<div><span class="fr-img-caption fr-fic fr-dib" style="width:960px"><span class="fr-img-wrap"><img src="https://od2-image-api.abs-cbn.com/prod/editorImage/175403137450620250214-vp-sara-duterte-presscon-impeachment-MT-3.jpg" style="width:960px" class="fr-fic fr-dib"/><span class="fr-inner" style="text-align:left">Vice President Sara Duterte holds a press conference with the media at the Office of the Vice President in Mandaluyong City on February 7, 2025. Duterte addressed the impeachment case filed against her by Congress, and also assured the public that her office would cooperate with the legal process while continuing to prioritize government programs and services. <em>Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News </em></span></span></span></div><div><br/></div><p>MANILA — Several faculty members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law reminded on Friday the limits of court&#x27;s judicial review over impeachment cases, saying the Congress deserves &quot;appropriate deference&quot; in its procedures and conduct of impeachment.</p><p>This after the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/25/supreme-court-duterte-impeachment-articles-unconstitutional-1601">declared the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional</a>, noting that it was barred by the one-year rule.</p><p>In a statement, the UP Law faculty members argued that unlike criminal or administrative proceedings which need strict judicial review — impeachment cases are decided by political and moral judgement of Philippines&#x27; elected officials.</p><p>&quot;Unlike legal accountability via criminal prosecutions for corruption, impeachment did not rely on standards of evidence, proof of elements, and judicial impartiality to function. With its unique moral underpinnings, impeachments are decided only upon the simple question of whether a high public official should continue to be entrusted with public office,&quot; the statement read, adding that decisions in impeachment are based on political and moral judgement, not on court&#x27;s analysis.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/25/what-lawmakers-said-on-sc-s-decision-to-block-sara-duterte-s-impeachment-trial-1909">Sara Duterte&#x27;s camp says SC ruling on impeachment &#x27;upheld the rule of law&#x27;</a></div><div><br/></div><div><strong>BEYOND COURT&#x27;S JUDICIAL REVIEW</strong></div><div><br/></div><p><strong></strong>The faculty members explained that precedents from nearly a century of past impeachments had showed that courts traditionally respected the Congress&#x27; independence over impeachment proceedings. </p><p>They said both chambers&#x27; actions were solely guided by the Constitution, which made it clear that the House of Representatives has the “exclusive power to initiate” and the Senate the “sole power to try and decide” all impeachment cases.</p><p>They aired a similar concern from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) that the over-judicialization of the process — like enforcing court-like procedures to the Congress as early as initiation phase — will change the nature of impeachment permanently.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/30/senate-house-clash-on-what-s-next-after-sc-ruling-on-vp-sara-impeachment-1525">Senate, House clash on what&#x27;s next after SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment</a></div><p>The UP Law faculty members emphasized that SC&#x27;s judicial review is only &quot;constitutionally available&quot; when there is grave abuse.</p><p>&quot;We believe that Congress simply relied on the rule set by the Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice that initiation by the House consists of the filing of a complaint and its referral to the proper committee. This could not be an abuse of discretion, much less a grave one,&quot; they said.</p><div><strong></strong></div><p>That UP Law faculty members said if the high court wishes to lay out new rules to the House, the lower chambers&#x27; actions must not be nullified and the new rules must be applied prospectively, not retroactively.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/31/draft-senate-resolution-urges-sc-to-apply-ruling-on-impeachment-only-to-future-cases-1833">Draft Senate resolution urges SC to apply ruling on impeachment only to future cases</a></div><p>They noted that the SC rarely intervened in past impeachments — and only did so in some cases cautiously — to avoid preempting Congress and influencing its only process of political accountability.</p><p>They said this was the high court&#x27;s acknowledgement that each impeachable offense is a &quot;nonjusticiable political question beyond the scope of its judicial power.&quot;</p><div><em></em></div><div><br/></div><div><strong>EMPOWERING &#x27;TYRANNICAL MAJORITY&#x27;</strong></div><div><br/></div><p>The statement further argued that the ruling also changes how the House processes an impeachment complaint and transfers one to the Senate.</p><p>It said the lower chamber must now convene and vote even if the one-third required votes have already been achieved, giving the House majority an advantage to block impeachment resolutions.</p><p><strong></strong>&quot;We agree with Justice Adolfo Azcuna’s view that this is contrary to the intent to make impeachments easier to initiate. We add that it deviates from the design to protect the process from a tyrannical majority, which in plenary now has the power to block resolutions for impeachment,&quot; they said.</p><p>&quot;As our colleagues have also noted 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,&quot; they added.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/28/hontiveros-aquino-pangilinan-urge-sc-to-reconsider-decision-blocking-vp-duterte-s-impeachment-1541" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Hontiveros, Aquino, Pangilinan urge SC to reconsider decision blocking VP Duterte&#x27;s impeachment trial</a></div><p>Other lawmakers earlier pointed out the same possible problem of intentional filing of another complaint just to trigger the same ruling. Several had already asked the SC to reconsider its decision.</p><p>Activist groups meanwhile said the decision disregarded previous SC rulings and would allow corrupt officials to “hide behind the Supreme Court and escape accountability to the people.” </p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/26/sc-ruling-on-vp-sara-impeachment-lets-officials-skirt-accountability-activist-groups-1111">SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment lets officials skirt accountability — activist groups</a></div><div><br/></div><div><strong>&#x27;IMPEACHMENT ITSELF IS THE DUE PROCESS&#x27;</strong></div><div><br/></div><p>The SC said that Duterte as a respondent in the impeachment complaint should be &quot;heard under the requirement of due process in the procedure&quot;, citing Article XI, Section 3.</p><p>But the UP Law faculty members&#x27; statement emphasized that while due process protects against any deprivation of &quot;life, liberty, and property,&quot; the public office is not a property within the context of the due process guarantee of the Constitution.</p><p>&quot;Impeachment has thus never required the observance of due process that applies to administrative proceedings: the impeachment trial is itself the due process,&quot; the statement read.</p><div><strong></strong></div><p><strong></strong>The statement added that the &quot;right to be heard of an impeachable officer is honored in the trial before the Senate.&quot;</p><p>The faculty members also stated that &quot;legacy of retaliation&quot; is visible to those who would express views or criticisms on court matters, as it mentioned the move to cite in contempt the critics of the ruling.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/30/cenda-a-gadon-heydarian-face-contempt-petition-over-comments-on-sc-s-duterte-impeachment-ruling-1428">Cendaña, Gadon, Heydarian face contempt petition over comments on SC&#x27;s Duterte impeachment ruling</a></div><p>On Wednesday, several lawyers had asked SC to cite Akbayan Rep. Perci Cendaña, anti-poverty adviser Larry Gadon, and analyst Richard Heydarian in indirect contempt over their comments on the high court’s decision declaring the impeachment case against Duterte unconstitutional.</p><p><strong></strong>&quot;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,&quot; the statement added.</p><div><br/></div><div><strong>RELATED VIDEOS:</strong></div><div><br/></div><div><span class="fr-video fr-deletable fr-fvc fr-dvb fr-draggable" contenteditable="false" draggable="true"><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zsEi_Q88CR0?&amp;wmode=opaque&amp;rel=0" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" class="fr-draggable"></iframe></span><span class="fr-video fr-deletable fr-fvc fr-dvb fr-draggable" contenteditable="false" draggable="true"><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_0SyLlbF1kU?&amp;wmode=opaque&amp;rel=0" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" class="fr-draggable"></iframe></span><br/></div><div><strong></strong><strong></strong></div>

<p>"We express our conviction that Congress deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment," the UP Law faculty members said.</p>

"We express our conviction that Congress deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment," the UP Law faculty members said.