By Ephraim B. Cortez, President, National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers
- The SC affirmed its previous ruling that an impeachment complaint is initiated upon its referral to the justice committee.
- The one-year bar is reckoned from the day an impeachment complaint is initiated, unacted upon, or dismissed.
- It affirmed that the first three impeachment complaints filed on Dec 2, Dec. 3, and Dec. 19, 2024, were placed in the Order of Business on February 5, 2025, or within 10 session days as mandated.
- The fourth impeachment complaint by 1/3 of the members of the House was filed and placed on the Order of Business on Feb. 5, 2025.
- Clearly, there was no initiated impeachment complaint at the time the fourth impeachment complaint was filed and placed in the Order of Business. Thus, it was not barred under the one-year bar rule.
- As shown by the Journal of the proceedings cited in the Decision, after the four impeachment complaints were read, the House, upon motion and without objection, acted to endorse the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate.
- Thereafter, the House, upon motion and without objection, acted to send the [first] three complaints to the archives.
- As reflected in the Journal, contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court, the initiation of the fourth impeachment complaint by endorsing it to the Senate was an approved action of the House, and not simply that of the Speaker or the Secretary General.
- As a consequence, the three other impeachment complaints were rendered functus officio upon the initiation of the fourth impeachment complaint, since the one-year bar rule had set in.
- It must also be noted that while Sec. 3 provides two modes of initiating an impeachment complaint, it does not provide a preference for the first mode defined in Sec. 3 (2) (filed by any citizen or a member of the House).
- The rule is that when the law does not provide a preference, everything should be treated equally.
- So that under this present circumstance where complaints filed under Sec. 3 (2) and Sec. 3 (4) (filed by 1/3 members of the House) were referred to the speaker on the same date, and were placed on the Order of Business for the same session day, the House had the discretion to decide which complaint to initiate. It had the option to refer the three prior complaints to the Committee on Justice, or to endorse the fourth complaint. In opting to endorse the fourth complaint, the House merely exercised its discretion granted by the Constitution.
- The SC provided a qualification to the application of Art. XI, Sec. 3 (4). It ruled that before the impeachment complaint filed by 1/3 of the members of the House could be endorsed to the Senate, the impeached public official should be given the opportunity to be heard. He/She should be furnished with the proposed Articles of Impeachment and supporting evidence, and should be allowed to respond.
- However, Sec. 3 (4) is clear and categorical. An impeachment complaint filed by 1/3 of the members of the House “SHALL constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate SHALL forthwith proceed.”
- As emphasized by the SC in its Decision, the use of the word “shall” is an indication that what is required by the law is mandatory. It is a command or a duty that should be followed. As such, considering its mandatory nature, upon the filing and referral of the impeachment complaint in accordance with Sec. 3 (4), the House has no other recourse but to immediately endorse it to the Senate so that the trial shall “forthwith proceed.”
- Since Sec. 3 (4) is clear and unambiguous, its provisions should be applied literally and without any qualifications (applying the rule verba legis non es recedendum or “from the words of the law, there should be no departure.”
- Sec. 3 (4) does not require that the Articles of Impeachment should be furnished to the impeached official and to give such official the opportunity to respond before it is endorsed to the Senate. Under the circumstances, the House did not violate the Constitution when it endorsed the Articles of Impeachment without allowing Sara Duterte to respond. It merely followed what the Constitution mandates them to do.
- Since the fourth impeachment complaint was properly initiated and endorsed, and upon its transmission, the Senate properly acquired jurisdiction to constitute itself as an impeachment court.
- Considering these observations, it is my opinion that the House acted within the bounds, and complied with the requirements, of the Constitution when it endorsed the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. And upon transmission of the Articles, the Senate acquired jurisdiction to constitute itself as an impeachment court. #
