SC ruling on Duterte impeachment draws fairness, legal concerns

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna and several legal experts have criticized the High Court’s recent decision voiding the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing it was unfair, unconstitutional, and amounted to judicial overreach.

Azcuna, a respected jurist and one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, described the ruling as “legally correct but rather unfair” due to its retroactive application of a new definition of when an impeachment complaint is deemed “initiated.”

“I respectfully submit that it would be unfair to apply this new definition to the complaint involved in the present case, as it was precisely adopted in reliance on the Supreme Court’s then prevailing definition,” Azcuna said in a formal statement dated July 26.

He appealed to the High Court to issue a supplemental resolution invoking the Doctrine of Operative Facts, a legal principle allowing the recognition of actions taken under a previous interpretation of the law as valid before a new definition is enforced prospectively.

“In this way, I respectfully submit, the people’s unwavering demand for accountability now will be served, and the trial in the Senate can still, and finally, proceed forthwith,” Azcuna added.

On Friday, July 25, the Supreme Court unanimously nullified the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives, citing a violation of the constitutional one-year rule and the Vice President’s right to due process.

Lawyer and Daily Guardian analyst Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M., delivers a forceful reminder: constitutional dissent must not drift into defiance.

In his opinion piece titled “Uncivil Disobedience,” Yusingco pushes back against calls from some sectors—including lawmakers and civic advocates—to proceed with the Senate impeachment trial despite the High Court’s unanimous ruling declaring the complaint unconstitutional.

“To disobey a SC decision is to disobey the law,” Yusingco writes. “If the rule of law is to prevail, then the Senate and the House of Representatives should abide by the SC decision and drop the impeachment trial.”

Yusingco’s message is both cautionary and clarifying.

While he acknowledges the legitimacy of publicly critiquing Supreme Court rulings—especially contentious ones—he draws a bright line between disagreement and disobedience.

“The Supreme Court is merely one of three equal branches of government,” he quotes University of Asia and the Pacific law dean Jemy Gatdula. “Like any human institution it can commit error.”

But that fallibility, Yusingco notes, does not invalidate the binding nature of its decisions.

He stresses that Article 8 of the Civil Code explicitly states that Supreme Court decisions form part of the laws of the land. This codification, he argues, imposes a civic and legal responsibility on citizens and lawmakers alike to follow the Court’s judgments, even as they critique its logic or consequences.

The recent decision on the Duterte impeachment complaint has sparked controversy because the Court adopted a new interpretation of the one-year impeachment ban—counting archived, unacted-upon complaints as having triggered the constitutional clock. This effectively blocked the fourth complaint, signed by one-third of House members and transmitted to the Senate on the last day of the 19th Congress.

For critics, the Court’s reasoning bent toward technicality at the expense of accountability.

But for Yusingco, even sharp criticism must not translate into institutional defiance.

“SC decisions should be dissected and discussed in classrooms, podcasts, and public affairs programs,” he says, “but lawmakers promoting disobedience to the law threaten the very foundation of democratic governance.”

Instead, Yusingco offers a constitutional alternative: let the impeachment matter rest, and pursue charges through existing legal avenues.

He recommends that House prosecutors redirect their efforts to the Office of the Ombudsman, which has already opened an investigation into plunder allegations against Vice President Duterte.

“A plunder indictment can mean jail time for the accused,” he writes. “This would be another opportunity to educate political leaders and public officials that crime does not pay.”

In this way, the accountability effort may continue within the bounds of law and due process.

Yusingco also makes a pointed political recommendation: citizens should focus their energy on pressuring President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to appoint a new Ombudsman with complete independence from Malacañang.

“We should demand that he chooses someone who has absolutely no personal and professional connection to him and his family,” he writes.

This, Yusingco argues, is the real expression of responsible people power—not by challenging the Court’s authority, but by strengthening the institutions that hold public officials accountable.

He made a historical warning: when the Supreme Court strays from its constitutional duty, or when the public compels it to act outside its constitutional bounds, the result is rarely benign.

“Remember the case of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary that effectively paved the way for the Marcos Sr. dictatorship.”

The SC ruling also sparked backlash from constitutional scholars, who argue that the decision rewrites established impeachment procedures and curtails the political prerogatives of the legislature.

Lawyer and former legislator Barry Gutierrez said the ruling “completely rewrites how we’ve understood and implemented impeachment, both from a historical and constitutional law perspective.”

He emphasized that the Court’s new requirements—such as mandatory impartiality and due process prior to Senate transmittal—“push impeachment toward a more judicial and less political process.”

Under the Court’s new definition, the three earlier complaints filed against Duterte in December 2024 were deemed “initiated” even though they were never referred to the House Committee on Justice, as required under precedent from the Davide case.

This retroactive application rendered the fourth impeachment complaint, adopted by one-third of House members and transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 5, unconstitutional under the one-year bar.

But several legal experts questioned the logic and legality of the Court’s interpretation.

Former law dean Melencio Sta. Maria Jr. said the ruling “has no legal anchor,” explaining that the three complaints were never referred to any committee and thus, under long-standing doctrine, were never formally initiated.

“Filing but no referral means no ‘initiation,’” he said. “How could there be a ‘dismissal’ of a proceeding which was never initiated in the first place?”

Ephraim Cortez, president of the National Union of People’s Lawyers, maintained that the House acted within its constitutional authority.

“In opting to endorse the fourth complaint, the House merely exercised its discretion granted by the Constitution,” Cortez said.

Cortez also criticized the Court’s assertion that Duterte’s right to due process had been violated.

He pointed to Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution, which states that when one-third of the House signs an impeachment complaint, it automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment and the Senate must proceed to trial.

“Under the circumstances, the House did not violate the Constitution,” he said.

Public interest lawyer Jesus Falcis added that the SC’s imposition of new procedural rules amounted to “judicial legislation.”

“What the SC did is worse — it is effectively amending the Constitution,” Falcis said.

Falcis also noted that the transmittal of the fourth complaint occurred before the 19th Congress adjourned on Feb. 5, contradicting the SC’s claim that the one-year rule was triggered.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that its decision does not absolve Duterte of the charges and that a new complaint may be filed beginning Feb. 6, 2026.

Despite this, critics warn that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent by shifting impeachment away from a political process into a rigid judicial framework, potentially weakening public accountability.