{"id":4648,"date":"2025-07-28T01:37:44","date_gmt":"2025-07-28T00:37:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/balitangklik.com\/?p=4648"},"modified":"2025-07-28T01:37:44","modified_gmt":"2025-07-28T00:37:44","slug":"can-sc-justices-be-impeached-en-masse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/balitangklik.com\/?p=4648","title":{"rendered":"Can SC justices be impeached en masse?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By DIEGO MORRA<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sifting through the arguments raised by the National Union of People\u2019s Lawyers (NUPL) and even former Supreme Court (SC) justices against the unanimous decision of the High Court to declare the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte Carpio \u201cunconstitutional,\u201d the question now is: Can the 13 justices who signed the decision be impeached themselves for \u201ctrifling with the law\u201d or imposing new requirements for the filing of impeachment complaints when the old rules sufficed?<\/p>\n

Taking the position of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) on matter seriously, is it proper and compelling for investigating the magistrates on the basis of a claim that the \u201cthe ruling is a blatant move to shield Duterte from accountability and halt the impeachment process \u2014 not only now, but effectively until February 2026.\u201d KMP stressed that the SC\u2019s rewriting of the impeachment rules is impunity disguised in legal jargon and argued that the \u201cSC cited a violation of the constitutional \u2018one-year ban\u2019 and alleged due process issues, stating that multiple impeachment complaints were filed within one year and that Duterte was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. According to the Court, this invalidated the articles of impeachment and stripped the Senate of jurisdiction to proceed with a trial.\u201d<\/p>\n

Is it now possible for the 13 justices who concurred with the ponencia of Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen be impeached themselves for promulgating a decision that has surfeit of law but suffers from the paucity of justice? Or for cutting corners and giving short shrift to the internal rules of the legislature? This is a unique case of the High Tribunal being subjected to an investigation on the basis of an assailed decision. Ignorance of the law excuses no one. Not even the 13 wise magistrates of the SC, In the US, one such assailed decision was the Dredd Scott ruling written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who declared that slaves cannot own property because they are slaves. Not even the abolition of slavery could make slaves equal to Whites. Taney ruled that both Blacks and Whites were \u201cequal, but separate.\u201d\u00a0 It took some years before the Taney decision was thrown to jurisprudential purgatory.<\/p>\n

KMP argued that this decision is part of a broader, calculated effort by the ruling elite to protect one of their own. \u201cFrom Malaca\u00f1ang to the Senate, and now the SC \u2014 all institutions have worked in unison to block the impeachment. It’s a clear indication of the rot within the system, which they are desperate to preserve,\u201d the group argued. \u201cMore than the technicalities, the core issue is Sara Duterte\u2019s misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds and the chronic failure to hold her accountable. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision creates new legal hurdles that make an already difficult accountability process nearly impossible. It favors bureaucrat capitalism and protects those in power from public scrutiny,\u201d KMP explained.<\/p>\n

NUPL also agreed that the SC \u201cdeparted from the Constitution\u201d by applying an interpretation of initiation not grounded in its plain text. \u201cArchiving or congressional adjournment do not cure this constitutional deficiency,\u201d the NUPL said, noting that complaints that were never referred to the committee were never formally initiated. \u201cTo treat unacted, unreferred complaints as having been \u2018initiated and dismissed\u2019 is to grant legal effect to what the Constitution does not recognize,\u201d it added. Under Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution, an impeachment complaint signed by at least one-third of House members automatically becomes the articles of impeachment and must proceed to trial, without the need to notify or hear from the respondent at that stage. These provisions cannot be supplanted by a unanimous SC verdict or reinterpreted by the wise magistrates without violating the Constitution itself. Perhaps, it is now time to subject the SC and its corps of \u201cconfidential lawyers\u201d to rigorous inquiry inasmuch as a flawed decision cannot be part of the law of the land.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Vice President\u2019s opportunity to respond is preserved before the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, as it always has been in our constitutional practice,\u201d the NUPL said. Imposing new procedures like furnishing the respondent with the complaint and seeking his or her response, NUPL warned the SC risks obstructing the House\u2019s exclusive power to initiate impeachment. \u201cThe delicate balance of powers must be carefully maintained. Any departure from this equilibrium, however well-intentioned, risks disrupting the constitutional order,\u201d NUPL explained. By requiring those who filed the complaint to provide the respondent with the evidence in order to abide by the due-process principle transforms impeachment into a criminal case, which it is not. NUPL said the decision was a \u201cmisreading of the impeachment timeline and a misapplication of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Looking into allegations that the SC decision was rushed, did not accord due process to the complaining lawmakers and neglected to call for oral arguments, the ground has been laid for an inquiry into the actions of the honorable magistrates. A 97-page decision could not have been discussed, written and finalized in a matter of five days or one week unless a task force of trusted lawyers worked on it double time, dividing the work to complete it for promulgation before the State of Nation Address (SONA) is delivered. Moreover, While the court found the complaint unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban and lacking due process, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and retired Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna also warned that the July 25, 2025 ruling imposed new interpretations that risk undermining the fairness and balance envisioned by the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Azcuna explained the decision introduced a new definition of what it means to \u201cinitiate\u201d an impeachment complaint. Citing a 2003 Francisco v. House of Representatives ruling, he said that a complaint is only considered initiated when it is referred to the House committee on justice. \u201cThe new definition, however, would now cover a situation where the complaints were NOT referred to a committee and, after the lapse of the time to do so, archived, and thus, the SC said, \u2018effectively dismissed,\u2019\u201d Azcuna added. The retired magistrate said the Lower House relied on the old definition and acted properly when it adopted the fourth complaint and transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate. It would not be fair to retroactively apply the court\u2019s new interpretation, Azcuna said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By DIEGO MORRA   Sifting through the arguments raised by the National Union of People\u2019s Lawyers (NUPL) and even former Supreme Court (SC) justices against the unanimous decision of the High Court to declare the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte Carpio \u201cunconstitutional,\u201d the question now is: Can the 13 justices who […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4649,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-editoryal"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t