Ironically, in making the decision, the SC itself violated the two so-called principles of law—GAD and due process. The SC abused its so-called constitutional right—or duty—“to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine if any branch or instrumentality of government has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.”
By TONY LOPEZ
Is our beloved Supreme Court afraid of plunderers being made to account in full view of the public and tried by our Impeachment Court?
I ask this question because of the impact of the Supreme Court’s July 25, 2025 decision in two cases, GR 278353, Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives (HOR), and the Senate, and GR 278359, lawyers of Sara vs. HOR.
Both cases want to stop the impeachment and the trial of the vice president for plotting to kill President Marcos, the First Lady, and the House Speaker; plundering at least P615 million of taxpayers’ money; unexplained wealth (she had hidden wealth of P2 billion); bribery, graft and corruption; and the sum of her acts making her unfit to remain vice president and hold public office in the future. The charges are contained in the Seven Articles of Impeachment in an impeachment complaint filed by the HOR before the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025.
What did the SC do? It declared the impeachment complaint unconstitutional, on two grounds—grave abuse of discretion (GAD) amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and Sara was not given due process by the HOR.
How did the HOR commit abuse? It initiated four impeachment complaints. The Constitution limits impeachment complaints against the same official to only one in one year. The SC subjected our beloved congressmen to a time and motion study, a crucial study in bureaucratic small-mindedness.
No due process?
Why no due process was given Sara? The HOR didn’t bother to read to Sara the complaint, did not bother to present her with the evidence, and did not bother to hear her side. In the first place, those things are not the responsibility of the HOR. Those steps are to be done during the impeachment trial before the Senate. Now if the HOR were to take those steps, the HOR would in effect be an impeachment court by itself—the prosecutor, judge, and executioner. Ridiculous.
Ironically, in making the decision, the SC itself violated the two so-called principles of law—GAD and due process. The SC abused its so-called constitutional right—or duty—”to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine if any branch or instrumentality of government has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.”
“I would have asked for Oral Argument before promulgating any decision. If the Court had patiently heard Oral Argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case?” suggests former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.
Adds former SC justice Adolf Azcuna: The SC crafted a new definition of what constitutes an impeachment being ‘initiated’ and applied it to a complaint adopted in reliance on previous and then prevailing SC definition (of “initiated”). “It strikes me as rather unfair.”
The SC has no business meddling in an impeachment trial. Impeachment is the job of the legislature acting as a sui generis court to make officials accountable.
The House or HOR initiates or verifies impeachment complaints, like a fiscal or prosecutor in our regular courts. The Senate tries impeachment cases. “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment,” says Section 6, Article XI of the Constitution, “Accountability of Public Officers”. Section 1 of the Article XI states: “Public Office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
Members of the Supreme Court can be removed, by impeachment, in a trial conducted by the Senate.
The problem ensues when the SC justices decide the rules and procedures of impeachment. It’s like a defendant before a judge telling him, “Hey judge, I, the accused, am going to tell you what you are going to do and how you will proceed with my case. I will tell you now the rules and how they will apply to me, right now.” If all defendants were tolerated that way, no defendant would ever be found guilty because defendants by the very nature of human evil and greed (because impeachments are usually about stealing money) would naturally design rules in their favor.
That is precisely what the SC did on July 25, 2025. The high court justices, hiding under their so-called unanimous will,13-0 (12 justices were Rodrigo Duterte appointees), decided the rules of impeachment. The effect is this: One, no impeachment defendant will ever be found guilty and ousted from power; and that includes, unfortunately, the SC justices, and two, we now have three Impeachment Courts –the Supreme Court, the HOR, and the Senate.
The most powerful of the three? The Supreme Court, of course. It can dictate on the HOR and it can dictate on the Senate, but it won’t dictate on itself. Why? Because under the Constitution, it is the only body in the entire government bureaucracy to determine what is GAD –grave abuse of discretion—and who is guilty of GAD.
My God, why has the SC forsaken the people? The SC exercised not only its right to define GAD and but also what is called “the principle of self-preservation”—another fancy SC doctrine. Because it is now nearly impossible to impeach and try SC justices, they preserve themselves.
By the way, did you know that the members of the judiciary are among the highest paid government people? They also have the fattest pension money. The gods of GAD have it all. Yet, among the three branches of government, the SC has the lowest public approval rating, a single digit 5%.
Thanks to the new SC ruling, Sara gets away with her acts of petty cash withdrawals. Still, 80% of Filipinos want her tried. By the Senate.