Azcuna: Francisco ruling differs from SC decision on VP Sara impeachment

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said Thursday the separate rulings of the high tribunal on the impeachment complaints against former Chief Justice Hilario Davide and Vice President Sara Duterte are as different as apples and oranges.

"'Yung Francisco case involved a complaint filed under the first mode na dumadaan sa hearing—sa committee. Samantalang itong kasalukuyang impeachment articles, ginawa ng Kongreso mismo under the second mode—by direct action of Congress itself—where there is no hearing required," Azcuna told Super Radyo dzBB.

(The Francisco case involved a complaint filed under the first mode that goes through a hearing—the committee. Meanwhile, the current impeachment articles were made by Congress itself under the second mode—by direct action of Congress itself—where there is no hearing required.)

"Iba po 'yung decision namin doon sa Francisco case. Hindi po puwedeng ikatulad sa sitwasyon ngayon. Parang apples and oranges ang kinukumpara mo," he said.

(Our decision in the Francisco case was different. You cannot compare it with the current situation. It's like comparing apples and oranges.)

In a separate interview on 24 Oras, Azcuna said the current SC changed the previous interpretation that an impeachment proceeding is initiated if the complaint has been referred to a House committee.

Azcuna said, "The interpretation we gave in Francisco vs. House is the one that was modified in the present case. Because in the present case, the Supreme Court said that the three complaints were initiated even if they were not referred to the committee, because they were archived and later on, with the lapse of the 19th Congress, they were terminated and dismissed."

The Senate on Wednesday voted to archive the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte, following the decision of the Supreme Court to declare the impeachment complaint unconstitutional.

With 19 votes for, four against, and one abstention, the Senate archived the impeachment complaint.

In explaining his vote favoring the move, Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero slammed retired justices who have been critical of the SC ruling on Duterte's impeachment, saying they were involved in the blocking of the impeachment complaint against then chief justice Hilario Davide in 2003.

He named Azcuna, retired SC justices Conchita Carpio-Morales and Antonio Carpio as well as former chief justices Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban.

They all voted in 2003 that the second impeachment complaint against Davide was barred under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

Written by Carpio-Morales, the decision in Francisco vs. House of Representatives said impeachment is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and its referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House.

On the other hand, in its July 25, 2025 ruling, the SC said that, "In light of archiving, dismissal, or rendering the first three complaints as functus officio, the Articles of Impeachment filed on February 5, 2025 is therefore barred because of the violation of the one-year ban." 

The SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. — VDV, GMA Integrated News