BEFORE THE LAW: DEFENSE OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE IMPEACHMENT ISSUE

By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The intensifying public discourse surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 278353, which nullified the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, offers a vivid illustration of the clash between legal interpretation and political partisanship. Critics argue that the Supreme Court "created" a new rule—one that allegedly prioritizes a specific mode of initiating impeachment, a rule they claim is absent from the Constitution. Yet such an assertion not only falls short legally, but also neglects the Court’s primary function in our democratic system: to serve as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

On the Two Constitutional Modes of Impeachment Initiation

Indeed, the 1987 Constitution recognizes two modes of initiating impeachment proceedings:

1. First Mode: Through a verified complaint filed by a Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen endorsed by a House Member. (Art. XI, Sec. 3[2])

2. Second Mode: By a direct filing of Articles of Impeachment signed by at least one-third of all House Members. (Art. XI, Sec. 3[4])

However, the textual equality of these two modes does not preclude the Supreme Court from interpreting their constitutional framework—especially when the matter implicates due process and the integrity of the impeachment mechanism itself.

The Legal Foundation of the Court’s “Priority Rule”

The Supreme Court did not arbitrarily "create" a rule out of thin air. Its interpretation giving priority to the first mode is rooted in constitutional principles of deliberation, transparency, and accountability. The first mode entails rigorous procedures: committee hearings, debates, public scrutiny, and recorded votes—all hallmarks of due process. In contrast, the second mode operates as a procedural shortcut.

This is not invention—it is constitutional hermeneutics: a purposeful and principled reading of the law in light of its intent. The Constitution is not merely a string of words; it embodies values and structural safeguards meant to preserve the balance of powers in government.

In Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003), the Supreme Court affirmed its authority to review congressional acts in the context of impeachment:

 “When the power of impeachment is wielded in a manner that violates constitutional principles, the Supreme Court is not only authorized but duty-bound to exercise its power of judicial review.”

In this light, the Court’s interpretation of “initiation” was both necessary and justified—to guard against railroading, abuse, and political weaponization of impeachment.

The OSG’s Argument: A Technical Truth, A Substantive Oversight

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) may be technically correct that the Constitution does not explicitly state a priority between the two modes. However, this narrow reading disregards the deeper constitutional purpose of impeachment—to ensure accountability through process, not arbitrary exercise of power.

The Court’s elevation of the first mode reflects a sound and reasonable interpretation designed to uphold checks and balances and to prevent the exploitation of the second mode as a tool for political vendetta or intimidation.

Upholding the Supreme Court’s Role as Final Arbiter

The repeated accusations of “basic error” and the public campaign to discredit the Supreme Court, though cloaked in the language of free expression, eventually cross the line into intimidation and delegitimization of a co-equal branch of government. When criticisms lack legal foundation and are aimed at undermining public confidence, they verge on an attack against judicial independence.

Let us not forget: democracy is not merely about the rule of the majority—it is also about fidelity to the rule of law and respect for constitutional institutions.

Under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution:

“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion…”

Thus, any final and executory decision of the Supreme Court binds all—whether a congressman, a senator, or an ordinary citizen. Dissent is a right, but defiance of law is legal anarchy.

 A Call for Sobriety and Respect

In this era of sharp polarization, our nation needs reflection—not attacks against institutions. Yes, we must speak—but let our voices also be guided by a commitment to the rule of law.

In the eyes of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final voice. Whether or not its rulings align with one’s politics, its voice is the voice of the Republic. #

#JusticeNotPolitics

#RespectTheSupremeCourt

#LetTheConstitutionSpeak

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