IMPEACHMENT: INCONSTITUTIONAL

Lifted from John Phil
6 February 2025



The impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte is being criticized as unconstitutional and void from the outset due to serious violations of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Supreme Court precedents. Here’s a detailed explanation of why these impeachment proceedings are problematic:

1. Violation of the One-Year Rule
The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly states in Article XI, Section 3(5) that “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” This rule is a safeguard designed to prevent harassment and ensure that impeachment is not misused as a political weapon.

What Happened: Reports indicate that the House of Representatives (HOR) initiated a fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte within a month of filing the previous three complaints.
Why It’s Illegal: Since the Constitution imposes a one-year bar on multiple impeachment complaints against the same official, endorsing a fourth complaint within the same year directly contravenes this provision.
Result: The fourth complaint is considered void ab initio—meaning it is invalid from the start—because it violates this constitutional safeguard.

2. Non-Compliance with the Supreme Court’s 10-Day Rule
The 2003 landmark case of Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives clarified how impeachment proceedings should be initiated and handled. The Supreme Court emphasized that once an impeachment complaint is filed and referred to the House Committee on Justice, the committee has 10 days to determine the sufficiency of the complaint in form and substance.

What Happened: The fourth impeachment complaint was reportedly filed and immediately endorsed without observing this mandatory 10-day period for evaluation by the Committee on Justice.
Why It’s Illegal: Bypassing this procedural requirement undermines the legitimacy of the impeachment process and contradicts established Supreme Court rulings.
Result: The failure to comply with this procedural timeline renders the impeachment process flawed and unconstitutional.

3. Failure to Conduct a Roll Call Vote
The Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the House of Representatives require that voting on the Articles of Impeachment be done by roll call, with each member’s vote being recorded individually by the Secretary General.

What Happened: If the HOR skipped the roll call vote or failed to record the individual votes properly, it would be a serious procedural violation that could further invalidate the process.
Why It Matters: Roll call voting ensures transparency and accountability. Bypassing this requirement creates room for abuse and secrecy, which compromises the integrity of the impeachment process.
Conclusion: Why the Impeachment is Void
The fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte violates fundamental constitutional provisions and procedural safeguards, making it legally and constitutionally indefensible. The one-year rule, 10-day evaluation period, and roll call voting requirement are not optional steps—they are essential protections meant to uphold fairness, due process, and stability in governance.

By ignoring these safeguards, the House of Representatives has undermined the constitutional framework it is sworn to uphold. This impeachment is not just flawed; it is unconstitutional and must be declared void to preserve the rule of law.

#UpholdTheConstitution
#NoToLegislativeAbuse
#TransparencyNow
#ThePeopleDeserveBetter
#ParaSaBayan 
#NoToCorruption 
#TapatNaPamumuno 
#freedomofspeech

Popular posts from this blog

UNSWERVING SERVICE TO HUMANITY

VACCINES OF DEATH

PARADISE BEYOND DREAMING