YOU CANNOT IMPEACH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE : THE FINALITY OF ARCHIVING IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE VICE PRESIDENT

By: Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The act of archiving the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte by the Philippine Senate, following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in G.R. No. 278353, is a constitutionally sound and jurisprudentially consistent act. It must be understood for what it truly is: not a mere procedural footnote, but a definitive termination of a process deemed void from the beginning—void ab initio—because it was initiated in violation of fundamental due process and constitutional principles.

 Archiving is Constitutional Finality, Not Procedural Delay

Archiving, in the context of Philippine parliamentary practice, is not synonymous with temporary suspension or a pause in deliberation. Rather, as emphasized in Senate precedents and House Rules themselves, archiving means legislative death—the removal of a measure from further consideration due to its constitutional or procedural infirmity. This is consistent with the Court’s doctrine in Francisco v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44 (2003), where the Supreme Court asserted its power under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution to review grave abuse of discretion, including abuses in the initiation of impeachment.

To argue that a motion for reconsideration (MFR) pending before the Supreme Court invalidates the Senate’s action of archiving is to misapprehend the principle of immediate executory effect of constitutional rulings. In A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC (Re: Letter of Justice Secretary Leila M. de Lima), the Court clarified that decisions declaring acts unconstitutional take effect immediately upon promulgation, unless restrained. No such restraint exists in this case. The presumption of regularity and obedience to a final judgment must thus prevail.

 Impeachment is Not a Weapon to Undermine Electoral Mandates

The Supreme Court’s declaration that the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President are null and void ab initio carries profound democratic implications. It confirms that impeachment is not a second election, nor a political bludgeon to reverse the sovereign will expressed at the ballot box. As Chief Justice Enrique Fernando once opined, “The people’s choice is paramount; impeachment must not be used as a shortcut to remove those whom some may dislike but the people elected.” (Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30)

This principle finds echo in U.S. jurisprudence. In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that while the Senate has the “sole Power to try all Impeachments,” this power must be exercised within the bounds of constitutional norms. The ruling affirmed that impeachment is not absolute—it is a limited power constrained by due process and constitutional structure.

Moreover, in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Court upheld that even the most politically sensitive matters are not immune from judicial scrutiny where constitutional rights are at stake. The parallels are unmistakable. The Philippine Supreme Court acted within its rightful mandate to prevent the subversion of constitutional due process masquerading as a legislative prerogative.

Legal Meaning of "Void Ab Initio": A Dead Process Cannot Be Resurrected

A proceeding declared void ab initio has no legal existence from the start. It cannot be cured, ratified, or revived—not even by a Motion for Reconsideration, which, in such context, becomes moot. As Justice Antonio Nachura articulated in Planters Products v. Fertiphil, G.R. No. 166006 (March 14, 2008), “a void act produces no legal effect.”

Thus, the Senate’s archiving of the impeachment articles merely formalizes what the Supreme Court has already declared: the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte are constitutionally dead. Whether archived or dismissed, the legal outcome is the same—termination with finality.

A Message to the Nation: Impeachment is Not a Substitute for Elections

Let this moment be a constitutional teaching to our nation. The people’s sovereignty is sacred. The ballot—not impeachment—is the ultimate instrument by which a Vice President is chosen and should be judged. To allow otherwise is to slide into an abyss where constitutional processes become tools of political vendetta.

Let this legal closure reaffirm the sanctity of democratic institutions. Let no political actor—however powerful—resurrect a corpse that the Constitution itself has buried.

 A Call to Guard Our Republic

The archiving of this unconstitutional impeachment is not just a procedural act—it is a defense of the rule of law, a celebration of judicial independence, and a reaffirmation of democratic sovereignty. The Filipino people deserve a government that functions within constitutional bounds—not one that uses impeachment as a partisan guillotine.

 “Let the Constitution be our compass, and let no one use the instruments of law to silence the voice of the people. Sovereignty resides in them, and from them springs the legitimacy of every elected official. In democracy, the ballot is sacred; in the Republic, the Constitution is supreme.”

Mabuhay ang Konstitusyon. Mabuhay ang Sambayanang Pilipino. #

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