Constitutional Reply to Speaker Romualdez: Respect the Supreme Court, Respect the Rule of Law

By: Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The statement of Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez on the Senate’s archiving of the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte must be addressed—not merely as a matter of political discourse, but as a constitutional imperative.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous en banc decision, has spoken: the four impeachment complaints were unconstitutional and void ab initio. The violations committed by the House of Representatives were not vague or debatable—they were, as the Court itself stressed, clear, direct, and substantial. These were not technical defects, but fatal infirmities that struck at the heart of the constitutional process.

The Rush Was in the Filing, Not the Burial

The Speaker frames the issue as if the Senate acted with undue haste in archiving the complaints. This is misleading. The constitutional breach did not occur in the Senate’s act of archiving—it occurred when the House rushed to file, consolidate, and transmit four separate impeachment complaints in a manner that short-circuited due process and disregarded the Constitution’s clear safeguards.

Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. Jurisprudence, particularly Francisco v. House of Representatives (415 SCRA 44 [2003]), teaches that “initiation” occurs upon the filing and referral to the proper committee. The House’s simultaneous initiation of four complaints was not an exercise of constitutional power; it was an abuse of it.

By consolidating and fast-tracking these complaints without the requisite deliberations, the House majority weaponized impeachment—transforming it from a constitutional check into a political sledgehammer.

The Legislature’s Duty to Respect the Judiciary

Even if the House filed a Motion for Reconsideration, the fact remains: the Supreme Court’s decision is immediately executory unless restrained or reversed. This is a bedrock principle under both Philippine and U.S. constitutional traditions—see Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation (548 SCRA 485 [2008]) and its American analogue in Cooper v. Aaron (358 U.S. 1 [1958]), which emphasized that legislative bodies are bound to comply with final court rulings, even if they disagree with them.

Congress cannot act as if its own interpretation of the Constitution is superior to that of the Supreme Court. The separation of powers is not a contest of wills—it is a system of co-equal branches bound by mutual respect and constitutional limits.

Archiving Is Not a “Burial” — It Is the Natural Consequence of Nullity

The Senate’s decision to archive was not a political maneuver; it was a recognition of legal reality. A void act has no life to begin with—it needs no ceremonial burial. As Norton v. Shelby County (118 U.S. 425 [1886]) famously held, “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

So too here: the impeachment complaints, being void from inception, were dead on arrival. The Senate merely acknowledged what the Constitution and the Supreme Court had already determined.

 The Danger of Political Weaponization

The tragedy here is not that the complaints were archived—it is that they were conceived and filed in a manner that undermined the constitutional order. Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy, intended to protect the Republic from grave abuses by high officials. It is not a political toy, nor a ladder for personal ambition.

When Congress uses impeachment to remove a duly elected official carrying the mandate of millions of Filipinos, without adherence to constitutional safeguards, it commits a double offense: against the individual targeted, and against the sovereign will of the electorate.

A Final Word to the Filipino People

Let this be a moment of clarity: democracy is not a game of numbers, but a discipline of rules. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, binding on all—most especially on those entrusted with legislative power.

To the Filipino people: be vigilant. Guard against the political weaponization of impeachment. Reject any attempt by Congress—or any branch—to twist constitutional processes into instruments of control and ambition. Our democracy survives only when all branches of government submit to the same rules, respect the same boundaries, and honor the same ultimate authority: the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

In the end, power is fleeting—but the rule of law endures. Let us stand for it, always.#

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