The Supreme Court of the Philippines explains why it dismissed the impeachment case against Sara Duterte!
The Supreme Court justices unanimously supported the cancellation of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte. Senior Associate Justice Leonaño was responsible for drafting the decision, and Leonaño explained why the Supreme Court believed the fourth impeachment complaint violated constitutional principles.
On December 2, 4, and 19, 2024, different individuals and groups submitted three preliminary impeachment complaints against Sara to the House of Representatives, but the House never took action on them during regular sessions.
When the House of Representatives went into recess on February 5, 2025, these complaints were filed, and the Supreme Court regarded this as the termination or dismissal of the impeachment against Sara.
On the same day, more than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives passed a resolution approving the fourth impeachment petition against Sara and referred it to the Senate as an article of impeachment.
The court ruled that, according to Article III, Section XI of the Constitution, the one-year ban begins "from the time the impeachment petition is dismissed or no longer viable." Since the first three complaints were considered dismissed on February 5, 2025, no new impeachment proceedings could be initiated before February 6, 2026, meaning that the fourth impeachment on that day was unconstitutional.
In addition to the time issue, the Supreme Court's decision clearly outlined the due process requirements for the impeachment procedure.
The court ruled: "The Bill of Rights, particularly the due process clause and the right to a speedy trial, applies to the entire impeachment process."
The court's decision listed seven specific due process requirements for the articles of impeachment, including the necessity to provide evidence to the official accused and to give them an opportunity to present a hearing before the Senate with the articles of impeachment and supporting evidence to prove the charges.
The court also required all members of the House of Representatives, not just those who considered supporting the impeachment, to have access to the articles of impeachment and supporting evidence.
Leonaño believed that impeachment is mainly a legal and constitutional procedure, but it has political characteristics, and emphasized that it is not a purely political procedure.
The Supreme Court asked the House of Representatives to provide evidence proving that all members of the House had the opportunity to read the articles of impeachment, but the House refused to provide it.
Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1838685983744000/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.