30/07/2025
SPECIAL REPORT
July 2025
SC RULES VP SARA DUTERTE IMPEACHMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Supreme Court has just issued a unanimous decision declaring the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives as unconstitutional.
And the Philippine political firmament has exploded, with reactions ranging from rage and anger - to gratitude and relief.
Marcos loyalists, Yellow and Pink supporters and Left-leaning activists are united in condemning the SC decision as judicial overreach. On the other hand, Duterte diehards are celebrating it as a vindication of VP Sara on the various complaints raised against her.
Both groups are wrong.
The SC decision is not a case of judicial overreach, but neither is it a dismissal of the charges against the VP.
Before we explain in detail, let us provide some context.
The Supreme Court is the highest body of the judicial branch of government, which is co-equal with the executive and legislative branches.
The Legislative branch creates laws. The Executive branch implements laws. The Judicial branch interprets laws.
The Constitution is a bulwark of legal and judicial stability, not a weather vane of partisan politics that changes direction to conform to the winds of whichever politician is in power.
Laws are intended to dispense impartial justice without emotion, not to satisfy the personal likes or dislikes of certain groups or to sooth their hurt feelings or emotions.
Most critics of the Supreme Court decision have overlooked the fact that the SC decision was unanimous. Furthermore, the ruling itself was penned by none other than Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who was appointed to the SC by then President Benigno Aquino III in 2012.
Unlike the usual talking heads and social media trolls who allowed their rabid hatred of the Dutertes to turn this case into a personal vendetta, Justice Leonen did not let his emotions overrule his duty as an interpreter of the law.
Legal minds looking at this matter from an unbiased lens would consider only what the Constitution says or does not say about the issue at hand. They would only base their decision on whether or not the impeachment complaint fully complied with all the legal prerequisites, not whether or not it will anger or please a certain segment of the population.
Leonen is fully aware that any SC decision becomes part of jurisprudence, making it part of the laws of the land. Thus, it provides due process protections not only for VP Sara Duterte, but for every politician from any political party who may find himself or herself in the same predicament in the future.
Theoretically, if Sara Duterte were to be elected President in 2028, and the elected Vice President were to come from the other party (let's say, VP Bam Aquino) and the majority of the House of Representatives seeks to ingratiate itself to the incumbent (as usual) by filing a series of impeachment complaints against her VP, Bam Aquino would enjoy the same protections conferred by this SC decision.
Justice Leonen, like most great judicial minds in Supreme Courts all over the world, is fully aware that justice should be blind in implementation, imparted equally to all people, whether we like them or not, whether we agree with their politics or not.
Philippine politicians are aligned, not by ideology or party loyalty, but rather by personal loyalties and expectation of a share in the distribution of political largesse. Filipino politicians change party affiliations and political loyalties as easily as they change their underwear.
In the U.S., ideology and party affiliation play a much greater role. One is either Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, with very few options in between.
This holds true even in their Supreme Court, which usually votes along ideological lines - Conservative vs Liberal. But even these ideologues - who hate the leader of the opposing party with a passion - usually come together on matters that could serve as a precedent for future administrations, such as diluting the power of the President to reorganize government.
In the case of AFGE v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order last July 8 on Trump's federal workforce reorganization, ruling in Trump's favor 8-1, with liberal Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson the lone dissenter.
Two other liberal associate justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, had voted with the conservative majority justices to allow Trump to keep his powers to reorganize the government.
Justice Sotomayor said the case was not about the merits of the reorganization plans themselves and pointed out that the case could proceed and other aspects challenged.
Just like Justice Leonen explained that the SC decision was not about the merits of the impeachment case, which Duterte's enemies could refile as early as February of next year.
Next time however, they should exercise due diligence and ensure that all legal and Constitutional rules and guidelines are followed so their case could prosper - instead of jumping over one another in their haste to each file his or her own complaint to prove sycophantic loyalty to their political masters and hopefully receive a bigger share of that newest of enticements for our legislators...
Ayuda funds.
