Former SC Justice Insights on SC Ruling on Dismissal of Impeachment trial of SARA Duterte!
Statement of Justice Adolf Azcuna today posted in social media .
The Principal Casualty
The principal casualty of the Supreme Court decision applying new rules on impeachment is the principle of accountability.
As most impartial observers agree, the Supreme Court’s newly pronounced definition of “initiate,” contrary to its own prevailing definition, would not only be unfair if applied retroactively, but would even as applied prospectively, unduly constrain the House of Representatives in the exercise of its EXCLUSIVE power to initiate ALL cases of impeachment (Art XI, Sec 3, Subsec 1 of the Philippine Constitution).
Note that we are here concerned with THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. THE PRINCIPAL MECHANISM ADOPTED BY ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ENFORCE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS IS IMPEACHMENT. This is a SUI GENERIS PROCEDURE so that normal requirements of notice and due process are subordinated to the overarching demand for accountability.
It is good to bear in mind the nature of public office. PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST. It is not a property owned by the occupant. THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS THEREFORE DO NOT STRICTLY APPLY TO PROTECT ITS OCCUPANTS FROM SCRUTINY AND POSSIBLE REMOVAL.
The Constitution provides that NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Art. III, The Bill of Rights). Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules IN ALL PHASES OF IMPEACHMENT?
None.
Recall that the 1935 Constitution, required 2/3 vote of the House to impeach and 3/4 vote of the Senate to convict. (Art IX, 1935 Constitution.) We in the 1986 Constitutional Commission deliberately made it EASIER to impeach and convict high officials by REDUCING the vote required to impeach in the House to only 1/3 and the vote in the Senate to convict to only 2/3. In short, the INTENT of the present Constitution is to make accountability EASIER TO ENFORCE.
NOTE TOO THAT the rule making power given to Congress in Art XI, Sec 3, Subsec 8, of the present Constitution states the purpose of the implementing rules—“to effectively carry out the purpose of this Section.”
The new rules of the Supreme Court in its decision, unless reconsidered, would add a plethora of requirements ranging from prior notice and hearing, to attaching the evidence, to requiring proof that the Representatives read and understood the charges and the supporting evidence. All these will effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure.
Furthermore, if allowed to stand, it will to my mind effectively amend —and, God forbid, DERAIL— the Constitution which even the Supreme Court has no power to do.
Finally, the powers granted the House of Representatives to initiate all cases of impeachment and the Senate to try and decide the same are what we call CONSTITUENT POWERS, that is, sovereign powers specifically assigned and lodged by the Constitution to a specific and particular organ or body of government. And the cardinal rule in regard to Constituent Powers is that WHERE THE CONSTITUTION PUTS IT, THERE IT SHOULD LIE.
THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE THE ONE TO CRAFT THE RULES TO ENFORCE ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The reason for this is because the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in ones own case.
NEMO DEBET JUDEX IN SUA CAUSA.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Adolfo S Azcuna
30 July 2025
The Principal Casualty
The principal casualty of the Supreme Court decision applying new rules on impeachment is the principle of accountability.
As most impartial observers agree, the Supreme Court’s newly pronounced definition of “initiate,” contrary to its own prevailing definition, would not only be unfair if applied retroactively, but would even as applied prospectively, unduly constrain the House of Representatives in the exercise of its EXCLUSIVE power to initiate ALL cases of impeachment (Art XI, Sec 3, Subsec 1 of the Philippine Constitution).
Note that we are here concerned with THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. THE PRINCIPAL MECHANISM ADOPTED BY ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ENFORCE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS IS IMPEACHMENT. This is a SUI GENERIS PROCEDURE so that normal requirements of notice and due process are subordinated to the overarching demand for accountability.
It is good to bear in mind the nature of public office. PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST. It is not a property owned by the occupant. THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS THEREFORE DO NOT STRICTLY APPLY TO PROTECT ITS OCCUPANTS FROM SCRUTINY AND POSSIBLE REMOVAL.
The Constitution provides that NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Art. III, The Bill of Rights). Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules IN ALL PHASES OF IMPEACHMENT?
None.
Recall that the 1935 Constitution, required 2/3 vote of the House to impeach and 3/4 vote of the Senate to convict. (Art IX, 1935 Constitution.) We in the 1986 Constitutional Commission deliberately made it EASIER to impeach and convict high officials by REDUCING the vote required to impeach in the House to only 1/3 and the vote in the Senate to convict to only 2/3. In short, the INTENT of the present Constitution is to make accountability EASIER TO ENFORCE.
NOTE TOO THAT the rule making power given to Congress in Art XI, Sec 3, Subsec 8, of the present Constitution states the purpose of the implementing rules—“to effectively carry out the purpose of this Section.”
The new rules of the Supreme Court in its decision, unless reconsidered, would add a plethora of requirements ranging from prior notice and hearing, to attaching the evidence, to requiring proof that the Representatives read and understood the charges and the supporting evidence. All these will effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure.
Furthermore, if allowed to stand, it will to my mind effectively amend —and, God forbid, DERAIL— the Constitution which even the Supreme Court has no power to do.
Finally, the powers granted the House of Representatives to initiate all cases of impeachment and the Senate to try and decide the same are what we call CONSTITUENT POWERS, that is, sovereign powers specifically assigned and lodged by the Constitution to a specific and particular organ or body of government. And the cardinal rule in regard to Constituent Powers is that WHERE THE CONSTITUTION PUTS IT, THERE IT SHOULD LIE.
THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE THE ONE TO CRAFT THE RULES TO ENFORCE ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The reason for this is because the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in ones own case.
NEMO DEBET JUDEX IN SUA CAUSA.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Adolfo S Azcuna
30 July 2025
Comments
Post a Comment