THE FILING of Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte has once again placed the spotlight on one of the most serious accountability mechanisms in the Philippine political system. Impeachment is not an everyday event; it is a constitutional process reserved for high-ranking officials who, it is alleged, have committed grave offenses that threaten the integrity of public service.
Under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office through impeachment for any of the following: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. These are not minor infractions but serious charges that go to the heart of a public official’s fitness to serve.
The Articles of Impeachment are the formal, written charges prepared by the House of Representatives after a verified complaint has passed the required deliberations and received the necessary votes. They specify in detail the acts or omissions being alleged, providing a clear outline of the case. In essence, the Articles function much like a criminal indictment – they are the legal blueprint for the impeachment trial.
Once the House adopts the Articles of Impeachment, they are transmitted to the Senate, which convenes as an Impeachment Court. At this stage, the process becomes like a judicial proceeding. The prosecution team from the House presents evidence to prove the charges, while the accused official is entitled to mount a full defense. The Senators, acting as judges, must weigh the evidence carefully before rendering a verdict.
The purpose of the Articles is twofold: first, to inform the accused of the exact nature of the allegations, ensuring compliance with the constitutional guarantee of due process; and second, to guide the Senate in its trial proceedings by defining the scope of the charges. Without clear, specific Articles, the impeachment process could devolve into political theater without the structure and discipline that legal proceedings require.
The legal foundation for impeachment lies not only in the Constitution but also in the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment adopted by both the House and the Senate. These rules define timelines, outline the presentation of evidence, and ensure that both sides are given a fair opportunity to be heard. This safeguards the process from being purely political and reinforces its role as a constitutional remedy rather than a partisan weapon.
It is worth noting that the decision to file or pursue impeachment is inherently a political one, as it requires the judgment of elected legislators. However, the Articles of Impeachment themselves are meant to rise above politics by laying out the factual and legal basis for the charges in a manner that could be assessed in a quasi-judicial trial.
The Articles of Impeachment against any high-ranking official, including the Vice President, should not be seen solely through a political lens. They are, first and foremost, legal instruments grounded in constitutional authority, designed to ensure that those entrusted with the highest offices remain accountable to the people.
Whether or not the current case prospers, the process reminds us of the delicate balance our system must maintain – between political will and the rule of law. When used with fairness and integrity, impeachment can strengthen democratic institutions by showing that no public official is above accountability./PN
