Ex-justice Azcuna: SC didn't scrap 'express lane' for impeachment
The Supreme Court (SC) did not remove the second mode or the faster way of filing impeachment complaints against high-ranking government officials, retired Supreme Court associate justice Adolfo Azcuna said Friday.
"Hindi naman po nawala. Ang obserbasyon ko diyan ay pwede pa rin gawin 'yung second, more kung saan 'yung one-third ng lower House members will sign, under oath, the Articles itself," Azcuna, a framer of the 1987 Constitution, told Super Radyo dzBB.
(It did not really disappear. My observation there is that the second mode can still be done where one-third of the members of the Lower House will sign, under oath, the Articles itself.)
This came after the SC En Banc denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives and affirmed its earlier ruling that declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
Under the Constitution, an impeachment case may be filed either through a complaint that will be referred to the House justice committee, or through a faster method where at least one-third of the House files it:
- a verified complaint may be filed by any House member or by any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any member, which shall be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.
- under the second mode, the complaint must be filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House; this will constitute the Articles of Impeachment, after which trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed
However, the current rules of the House require that an impeachment case filed through the second mode must still be referred to the House committee on justice.
Azcuna said the SC clarified that a referral is not needed for the second mode, making the filing faster.
"Ang kailangan lamang dito sa second mode is to make sure that each and every member ng lower House has a copy of the complaint and of the evidence. 'Yun lang, bigyan lang sila ng kopya," he said.
(What is only needed here in the second mode is to make sure that each and every member of the lower House has a copy of the complaint and of the evidence. That's all, just give them copies.)
"It's easy now to do a second mode. Ngayon, 'yung ni-require na hearing by the plenary in the second more, optional na. It's up to the Congress to refer it to a committee for hearing or directly transmit it to the Senate. So parang madali na rin," he added.
(It's easy now to do a second mode. Now, the hearing by the plenary that was required in the second mode is optional. It's up to Congress to refer it to a committee for hearing or directly transmit it to the Senate. So it has also become easier.)
Aside from this, Azcuna said the SC clarified what it means to initiate a complaint and trigger the one-year ban.
He said that should the House Justice Committee dismiss a complaint that has been referred, this will trigger the one-year ban.
"Kasi initiated na 'yun kahit dinismiss (because it is already initiated, even if it is dismissed)," he said.
When asked if what the High Court did was unconstitutional, Azcuna said no.
"The SC can interpret the Constitution, also in such a way to make the rules of the House consistent to the Rules of the Constitution," he said.
Azcuna added that filing impeachment cases are still doable.
Following the announcement of the Supreme Court ruling, Senate President Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said impeachment has become an "impossible dream" after the SC upheld its August 2025 decision on the constitutionality of the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte.
Sotto has said the Supreme Court's decision was a "clear encroachment" on the powers of the Legislative branch, adding that the high tribunal introduced a rule for Congress to follow on the conduct of impeachment.
For Duterte's defense team, however, the government should "move on" to other concerns as the matter is now supposedly "closed." — VDV, GMA Integrated News