Former Justices Critique Supreme Court Ruling on Sara Duterte's Impeachment

MANILA, Philippines — Former Supreme Court justices have voiced serious concerns regarding the tribunal’s recent unanimous decision to void the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. This ruling, delivered on July 10, 2022, has raised alarms among legal experts and human rights advocates alike, who warn that it may distort constitutional safeguards and weaken accountability mechanisms for high-ranking officials.

The Supreme Court found the impeachment complaint unconstitutional, citing a violation of the one-year ban on initiating such complaints, as well as a lack of due process. The Court criticized the House of Representatives for not providing Duterte with the articles of impeachment or an opportunity to respond before sending the case to the Senate.

Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and former Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna have expressed that the ruling imposes new interpretations that could undermine the fairness and balance envisioned by the Constitution. Panganiban emphasized the need for the Court to have conducted a more thorough examination of the issues involved, rather than issuing a “rather rushed decision.” He noted the importance of oral arguments in significant cases, suggesting that the Court's approach lacked the necessary deliberation.

Justice Azcuna added that while the Court’s decision may be legally correct, it is fundamentally unfair. He highlighted the new definition of what constitutes the initiation of an impeachment complaint, which the Court introduced, diverging from the established interpretation. Azcuna pointed out that the House had acted within its rights based on the previous definitions when it adopted the fourth impeachment complaint and transmitted it to the Senate. He cautioned against retroactively applying the Court’s new interpretation, which could adversely affect the House’s authority to initiate impeachment proceedings.

In addition to these critiques, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), representing human rights lawyers, criticized the Supreme Court for misreading the impeachment timeline and misapplying the Constitution. They argue that the Court's decision deviates from the constitutional text, as the impeachment complaint signed by a third of House members should automatically proceed to trial without needing to notify or hear from the respondent at that stage.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate case, as critics argue that it risks obstructing the House's exclusive power to initiate impeachment. The NUPL warned that any departure from the established balance of powers could disrupt the constitutional order, which is crucial in maintaining democratic governance.

Further complicating the matter, Justice Antonio Carpio, another retired Supreme Court justice, defended the House’s actions, asserting that it adhered strictly to constitutional guidelines. Carpio noted the timeline of the House's proceedings, which he claims demonstrates compliance with the Constitution, countering the criticisms leveled against the impeachment process.

The Supreme Court's ruling effectively bars any new impeachment complaints against Duterte for a year, a significant development given the serious allegations against her, which include graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and misuse of over 600 million pesos in confidential funds. Critics have also raised concerns regarding Duterte's alleged threats against high-ranking officials, including President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and others.

As this legal battle unfolds, the future of accountability for high-ranking officials in the Philippines remains uncertain. The discussions around this ruling highlight the ongoing tension between judicial interpretations and legislative processes, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in the application of constitutional law.