Impeachment on a Stopwatch?
When the gavels fall at exactly 12:00 p.m. on 30 June 2025, the 19th Congress of the Philippines dissolves. With it evaporates the House prosecution panel that has been pressing the Senate Impeachment Court (SIC) to remove Vice-President Sara Z. Duterte. No matter how feverishly the prosecutors race to lodge their “reply” at 11:59 a.m., the impeachment will be, in law and in fact, over. Here’s why.
The Constitutional Clock
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution splits impeachment into two temporal bodies: the House of Representatives, which initiates charges, and the Senate, which tries them. House impeachment managers derive their authority solely from the term of the House that appoints them. House Rules on Impeachment (11 August 2022) make that explicit: managers serve “until a final judgment is rendered or until the expiration of the House that appointed them, whichever comes first.”
Once the 19th Congress expires at noon, there is no longer a House of Representatives in being to stand behind its prosecutors. At that moment, the SIC loses an indispensable party; the case abates for want of a lawful adversary.
The “11:59 a.m. Filing” Mirage
Some strategists suggest racing a stamped reply into the Senate’s docket at 11:59 a.m., then timing the receiving officer’s signature for 12:00 p.m. to “carry” the case over to the 20th Congress. But paperwork cannot resuscitate a lapsed mandate. The question is not when the pleading hits the counter; it is whether the prosecutors are still clothed with authority at the very instant of Senate receipt. They are not. A pleading without a principal is a legal orphan.
Lessons from Washington
U.S. impeachment practice, though not binding, is instructive. In every instance where a Congress adjourned sine die before judgment, unfinished impeachment articles died with it. The House that follows must start anew—draft fresh articles, secure a new majority vote, and appoint new managers. Precedents span the 19th-century trials of Judges West Humphreys and Charles Swayne to modern abandoned proceedings against cabinet officers. The rationale is identical to ours: impeachment is the voice of a living, popularly elected House.
The One-Year Constitutional Bar
The moment the first Duterte complaint was filed and referred to the Justice Committee—likely March 2025—the Constitution’s “one-year bar” (Art. XI §3 ¶5; Francisco v. House, 2003; Gutierrez v. Justice Committee, 2011) locked in. Even after abatement, no second impeachment may be initiated until at least March 2026. Political impatience cannot abridge that waiting period.
What Happens Next?
Automatic Dismissal – The SIC should, motu proprio, enter an order dismissing the case at 12:00 p.m. on 30 June 2025 for lack of prosecution.
Fresh Complaint – If legislators still wish to impeach, the 20th Congress must wait out the one-year bar, file new verified articles, win a new House vote, and send new managers to the Senate.
Avoiding a Stopwatch Circus – Impeachment was never meant to be a race against the clock but a sober constitutional remedy. Reducing it to time-stamped theatrics invites legal error and diminishes public trust.
A Final Word on “Procedural Technicalities”
The Constitution embeds cooling-off mechanisms precisely to prevent impulsive political punishment. When a Congress ends, its unfinished impeachment vanishes with it. Attempts to handcuff the Senate to a ghost prosecution panel—by gamesmanship over a one-minute filing window—are not merely technical fouls; they strike at the separation of powers itself. If a new House believes grounds still exist, let it start over, as the charter requires, under the clear light of day and the fresh verdict of the electorate.
Anything less converts the gravest of constitutional remedies into a stopwatch stunt.#
Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University. He is an AB-Philosophy Major at the University of Santo Tomas ( UST). He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances
Comments
Post a Comment