Law Dean: Only Presidential Impeach Trials Require Chief Justice to Preside

 

By Gerome Dalipe

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may only preside over the impeachment trial of the president—not the vice president or any other impeachable official—according to lawyer Ralph Sarmiento, dean of the University of St. La Salle College of Law in Bacolod City.

In a recent social media post, Sarmiento said both the text and deliberative history of the 1987 Constitution support this interpretation.

He emphasized that in impeachment cases involving the vice president or other officials, the Senate president—not the Chief Justice—must preside.

Citing Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution, Sarmiento noted that while the Senate holds the “sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment,” the provision clearly states: “When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice shall preside, but shall not vote.”

This language, according to Sarmiento, restricts the Chief Justice’s role exclusively to presidential impeachment trials.

He added that although Article VII, Section 3 permits the removal of the vice president “in the same manner as the President,” specific provisions take precedence over general ones in constitutional interpretation.

“The specific mandate for the Chief Justice to preside only in presidential trials overrides the more general process for removing the vice president,” Sarmiento explained, citing the legal principle of verba legis, which requires courts to apply the law’s plain meaning.

He also referenced the records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, where an amendment proposal to clarify who would preside over non-presidential trials was withdrawn.

Commissioner Raul Monsod reportedly said it was already understood that the Chief Justice’s role applied only to presidential trials.

Commissioner Teofisto Guingona II likewise confirmed that in all other cases, the Senate president would preside.

Sarmiento said any broader interpretation of the Chief Justice’s role would render the constitutional provision meaningless and contradict the framers’ intent.

“The intent is clear: only the President’s impeachment trial warrants the Chief Justice at the helm,” he said.