Beyond Politics: Why The Supreme Court's Ruling on VP Sarah Duterte's Impeachment is Legally Sound and Final

The Political Lens and the Legal Divide

The recent Supreme Court ruling in G.R. No. 278353, Vice President Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives, et al., declaring the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional, void ab initio, and immediately executory, has drawn both fierce support and equally passionate criticism from legal scholars, political blocs, media commentators, and civil society. The divide is glaring—but it is also telling. The fault lines in this public debate do not primarily trace legal reasoning or constitutional theory; they reveal political allegiance.

Those aligned with opposition coalitions view the ruling as a judicial overreach. Conversely, supporters of Vice President Duterte see it as a vindication of due process and constitutional fidelity. Yet such reactions often blur the core legal question: not whether the impeachment should proceed politically, but whether it followed the law. When the political smoke clears, the fundamental truth must be reaffirmed: the Philippine Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, and its ruling is grounded in enduring constitutional doctrine, consistent with both Philippine jurisprudence and comparative U.S. law.

 The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Anchored in Law, Not Partisan Will

The Supreme Court held that the impeachment proceedings were void ab initio for failure to meet the threshold requirement of valid initiation under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution. The Court ruled that without a proper plenary vote adopting the complaint, the process lacked legal existence. This is not a novel imposition; it builds on the doctrine in Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (2003), where the Court made clear that "initiation" involves the filing and referral to the Committee on Justice—a two-step process that must be transparent and procedural.

In Francisco, the Court emphasized that “[i]mpeachment is not solely a political question beyond judicial review; it is subject to constitutional limits.” In affirming this principle, the Court’s current decision reflects consistency, not innovation.

The Court’s Jurisdiction: Separation of Powers Reaffirmed

Critics argue that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is sui generis and therefore beyond judicial control. This assertion fails to grasp the full breadth of the doctrine of separation of powers. As early as Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936), the Supreme Court held that “[i]t is within the province of the judiciary to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”

No branch is above the Constitution. Checks and balances mean that each branch must operate within constitutional confines. When impeachment—however political in character—violates procedural due process, it is not only reviewable but invalid.

In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a related concern in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Although the Court declined to interfere with the Senate’s impeachment procedures, it did not surrender judicial review in all cases. As Justice Souter wrote in concurrence, some constitutional violations in impeachment processes may be so serious as to justify judicial intervention.

The Philippine Constitution, with its civil law foundation, embraces a broader and more active judicial review than its American counterpart. Our Court has long upheld that even political questions are justiciable if they involve clear constitutional violations. As reaffirmed in Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287 (2014), the power of judicial review is not optional—it is a constitutional duty.

 Impeachment and Due Process: Non-Negotiable Principles

Impeachment may be a political act, but it is bounded by the Constitution. The Supreme Court was right to assert that no person—whether public official or private citizen—may be deprived of their rights without due process of law. The framers of the 1987 Constitution envisioned impeachment as an extraordinary remedy, not a partisan weapon.

The argument that due process must yield to political expediency undermines the entire framework of accountable governance. As U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren once observed in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), “Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.” Similarly, the political character of impeachment does not justify a deviation from constitutional norms.

The Real Divide: Political Loyalties, Not Legal Deficiencies

The bitter divide following the Supreme Court’s decision is less about law and more about political narratives. Legal arguments are too often retrofitted to suit political ends. One cannot help but notice that many of those who once decried "weaponizing the law" now defend legally flawed processes when it suits their political objectives.

This is not merely partisan hypocrisy—it is constitutional erosion. The Constitution must never be held hostage by shifting political winds. As Justice Roberto Concepcion wrote in Javellana v. Executive Secretary, “The Constitution is not a flexible thing to be bent and twisted to meet the needs of the moment.”

The Rule of Law Has Spoken

Let us now put to rest this division—not by silencing dissent, but by anchoring our public discourse in fidelity to the rule of law. The Supreme Court, acting within its constitutional mandate, has spoken. Its ruling is not merely binding; it is a reaffirmation of the legal order upon which our Republic rests.

To continue to defy the Court is not political resistance—it is a constitutional affront.

Let it be said: The Constitution is not partisan. The rule of law is not political. And the Supreme Court, under our democratic framework, is not an equal player—it is the final arbiter.

In times of political confusion, we must find clarity not in the fervor of our allegiances, but in the strength of our institutions.

For when the noise of division settles, what must remain is this solemn truth: In a Republic governed by law, not men, the Constitution—not political will—must always have the last word.