“Endorsement cannot be automatic just because one-third of the members sign; there must be genuine deliberation”
“There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. This is what the Rule of Just Law means. This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment,” Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen wrote in Sara Duterte vs. House of Representatives.
With these words, the Supreme Court stressed that fairness and due process apply at every stage of an impeachment proceeding.
Even in a politically charged process, the rule of law must prevail. The ruling emphasized that due process is not a courtesy but a Constitutional requirement, and that it must already be observed before the Senate takes on its role as the impeachment court.
The decision explained how these guarantees should work in practice.
The official facing impeachment must be given the chance to respond to the allegations before the case is transmitted to the Senate.
All House members, and not only those endorsing the complaint, must have access to the evidence.
Endorsement cannot be automatic just because one-third of the members sign; there must be genuine deliberation.
Complaints must be placed on the agenda within 10 session days and referred to the proper committee within three days.
Finally, only grave offenses committed during the incumbent’s present term may be used as grounds for impeachment.
Justice Leonen found that these safeguards were not observed in the Duterte case.
The Vice President was not given the chance to respond.
Evidence was withheld from many members.
No meaningful deliberation was held, and the endorsement lacked transparency and fairness.
These lapses, the Court held, made the Articles of Impeachment Constitutionally infirm even before they reached the Senate.
The ruling has been met with sharp criticism.
Some legal scholars and former justices contend the Court has placed undue burdens on the impeachment process.
They argue the new requirements were applied retroactively and weaken impeachment as a mechanism of accountability.
In their view, impeachment is fundamentally a political process and should not be restricted by judicial rules designed for trials.
They warn that requiring exchanges of evidence and responses before Senate transmission risks turning impeachment into a trial before the trial.
Still, precedent supports the Court’s approach.
In Francisco v. House of Representatives, the Court already ruled that Constitutional safeguards, including due process, must be respected in impeachment.
The essence of due process is straightforward: the accused must be given the opportunity to answer the charges and to be judged fairly by an impartial body. In impeachment, this ensures that proceedings are predictable, transparent, and not subject to partisan whims.
The real debate is not whether due process applies, but how far it should extend.
Critics say Leonen’s ponencia overreached by laying down procedural steps not explicitly found in Francisco or in the Constitution.
They worry that these judicially crafted rules risk making impeachment impractical and insulating officials from accountability.
Supporters respond that the safeguards are necessary to prevent harassment and politically motivated complaints, and that they strengthen the process by ensuring it is not reduced to a numbers game.
Even if the ruling imposes stricter standards, it remains within the Court’s constitutional authority.
The Supreme Court has long exercised its power to refine and revise precedent when justice demands it.
Seen in this light, the Leonen decision is part of the Court’s responsibility to make constitutional processes both fair and workable.
Looking ahead, the ruling carries important consequences.
Members of the House must be more deliberate when handling complaints, knowing that shortcuts will be struck down.
Senators sitting as jurors must now distinguish which elements of due process apply at initiation, which apply at trial, and which apply to both.
If observed in good faith, the decision provides a roadmap that strengthens accountability while preventing abuse of the impeachment power.
Ultimately, the Court has reframed impeachment as not only a political act but also a Constitutional one.
Politics will always shape how it unfolds, but fairness, transparency, and predictability must guide it.
While critics may decry the added burdens, the decision’s broader message is clear: impeachment, like all exercises of state power, must operate within the rule of law.
By demanding higher standards of fairness, the Court has shown that accountability is not weakened by due process but is, in fact, made stronger by it.
Facebook, X, Instagram and Blue Sky: tonylavs Website: tonylavina.com
