VP Duterte Impeachment: Why SC May Be Final—But Not Always Right

By:
On:
In: Commentary, Law and Governance
Tagged: , , ,

🕓 Last Updated: July 27, 2025, 12:16 am (PH time)

This commentary challenges the Philippine Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling that voided the VP Duterte impeachment. It critically examines the SC’s reliance on technicality—specifically, the one-year bar rule—and argues that true justice must prioritize accountability over formality. Here in this piece, drawing from legal philosophy and global jurisprudence, it asserts that while the SC may be final, it is not always right. This calls for reforms and civic vigilance to ensure the Constitution serves the people, not the powerful.

As Ronald Dworkin, in the 1986 Law’s Empire, puts it, “Law’s empire is defined by attitude, not territory or power or process.”

Firstly, I did not even study law. But like many Filipinos who live under the shadow of flawed systems and unchecked authority, I believe I have the right—and the responsibility—to speak and even rant on justice. And why not?

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling declaring the impeachment complaint against VP Sara Duterte as unconstitutional sends an outright chilling message: that technicality can trump accountability in the halls of justice. For many, and maybe for you, this ruling closes the door on a vital democratic process. But I must argue this: just because a ruling is final does not mean it is right.

The SC Ruling on VP Duterte Impeachment: A Technical Fortress?

On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, through a unanimous en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, declared that the impeachment complaint against VP Duterte violated the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution (Reuters, 2025). Now, would you mind asking what their reasoning is behind it? Multiple impeachment complaints had been filed against her starting in December 2024, although the first three were merely “noted” and archived.

The SC concluded that these filings already constituted an impeachment proceeding, effectively barring the fourth (and most formal) complaint filed in February 2025.

Mind you, this ruling, while consistent with a literal reading of the Constitution, disregards the spirit of due process, accountability, and the right of the Filipino people to demand ethical governance. And the top court at that is basically and apparently not minding that? Let me ask.

Why Final Doesn’t Mean Infallible

Why? In the first place, why? There is a dangerous assumption in Philippine jurisprudence: that because the Supreme Court has the “last say,” it must always be correct. But even the most respected philosophers and legal thinkers challenge this view. I hope I am being politically correct and accurate, stressing this point even more than once.

Ronald Dworkin, a giant in legal philosophy, reminds us that “judicial decisions must be justified not just by rules, but by principles of fairness, justice, and procedural due process.” Here, simply put, Dworkin argues that judges must look beyond the letter of the law to its moral purpose. Laws are not mere commands. They are commitments to a deeper ethical order. Thus, a decision that adheres to procedure but denies substantive justice should never go unchallenged. Is this too hard to live by when our every heart and mind as a judge directly points out to the compass of mere justice?

Similarly, Lon L. Fuller, in his landmark work The Morality of Law (1964), wrote, “The inner morality of law demands coherence, transparency, and congruence between rules and outcomes. When these are ignored, the law becomes an empty ritual.” And just right in this case, the SC’s adherence to rigid form over substance transforms the impeachment process into a shell devoid of democratic meaning. With this, I must presume.

Rebutting the SC Decision: Substance vs. Form

Now, let me try arguing the SC decision, particularly on its major claims that procedurally killed VP Duterte impeachment right in their face. Tracing the contours of the SC’s core of the ruling, let me go this way:

➤ Supreme Court Claim 1: The Constitution prohibits more than one impeachment proceeding per year.
Critical Rebuttal: But “proceeding” must be defined by action, not just receipt. If Congress merely “notes” or archives complaints without deliberation, it cannot qualify as formal “proceedings.”

➤ Supreme Court Claim 2: Due process applies even to the accused; VP Duterte deserves protection from repeated harassment.
Critical Rebuttal: True. But justice must also serve the people. When complaints allege grave misconduct, denying even one formal hearing betrays public trust.

➤ Supreme Court Claim 3: The unanimous decision reflects judicial clarity.
Critical Rebuttal: Yet, the composition of the SC reflects political legacy: 12 of 15 justices were appointed by President Duterte. Unanimity doesn’t erase institutional bias or shield rulings from scrutiny.

Impeachment Is Not Harassment. It Is a Constitutional Duty.

Speaking from a neutral perspective and drawing out from a general point of view, the impeachment complaint against VP Duterte is not just a political maneuver. It is a test of the country’s capacity to hold its highest officials accountable. Whether you are a pro-Duterte family or whatever else in between the political colors, this concept of justice shall be upheld.

Allegations include fund misuse, intimidation of state officials, and subversion of civilian command—serious charges that demand scrutiny. The SC’s ruling does not deny their substance, but it dismisses their path to accountability. Is this justice after all? I see it rather as evasion.

We must remember: the Constitution does not merely protect public officials—it protects the people from them.

The People Must Remain Vigilant

As Filipino taxpayers and citizens of this Republic, we must not accept technical loopholes as the final word on justice. We must pressure Congress to revise impeachment procedures to clarify what constitutes a “proceeding.” We must strengthen civic education, journalistic inquiry, and public participation. And yes, we must challenge the Supreme Court—respectfully, constructively, and relentlessly—when it makes rulings that undermine democratic accountability.

A Plea for Moral Constitutionalism

Again, in his 1986 Law’s Empire, let me borrow the words from Ronald Dworkin: “There is no single correct answer in law, but there are better and worse answers—measured by their fidelity to justice, not just text.”

The SC may be supreme. But the Constitution’s true guardians are the people. When justice is delayed by technicality and truth is buried under formality, this isn’t justice anymore, which the primary advocacy of the Constitution of the people firmly upholds. Let us rise—not in rebellion, but in reason, resistance, and remembrance of what justice is meant to serve. We do not demand perfection from our leaders, but we do demand accountability. And no court should stand in the way of that. ▲

References:

SEO Keywords: VP Duterte impeachment, supreme court ruling on VP Duterte impeachment, Dworkin, Law’s Empire, Duterte impeachment

💬 AI Use Disclosure: This is an AI technology-assisted article (ChatGPT, OpenAI). 👉 Learn more about our use of AI.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated organization, employer, or institution. The author bears sole responsibility for the content.

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *