Jun SM @junusanmiguel - Twitter Profile

about 1 year ago

READ!!! READ!!! READ!!! 🚨🚨 THE ULTIMATE CALL FROM FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO PUNO OFFICIAL STATEMENT PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PhilConsa) On the Supreme Court Ruling in G.R. No. 278353 “Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives, et al.” July 30, 2025 The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) expresses its serious concern over the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 278353, which nullified the impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. With due respect to the Honorable Court, we believe this decision overreaches constitutional boundaries, disrupts the separation of powers, and weakens Congress’ exclusive authority to hold impeachable officers accountable. ⸻ The Facts Cannot Be Ignored Between December 2024 and February 2025, four impeachment complaints were filed against Vice President Duterte. The first three complaints, though officially docketed, were never pursued. They were neither found sufficient in form and substance nor referred for committee hearings. On February 5, 2025, a fourth complaint—this time endorsed by 215 members of the House, more than the required one-third—was transmitted as Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, in full accordance with the Constitution. Yet on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the fourth complaint was barred under the one-year rule in Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, on the theory that the filing of earlier complaints—even if not acted upon—already “initiated” the impeachment process. ⸻ This Interpretation Is Constitutionally Flawed PhilConsa respectfully but firmly disagrees with this interpretation. The one-year bar rule was designed to prevent harassment through repeated impeachment proceedings—not to protect impeachable officers from ever facing trial by allowing them to take cover behind mere filings. As the Court itself held in Francisco v. House of Representatives, impeachment is only deemed initiated after the complaint is found sufficient in form and substance and referred to the Committee on Justice. The earlier complaints never reached that stage. To treat them as having “initiated” proceedings defies both logic and constitutional intent. This ruling invites dangerous abuse. It opens the door for impeachable officials—or their allies—to deliberately file weak or premature complaints to “consume” the one-year window and block any real effort at accountability. This is not a safeguard against harassment—it is a blueprint for evasion. ⸻ Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism This case called for judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The Constitution gave the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try and decide it. These are textual, exclusive powers, and the Judiciary’s role in such matters should be limited to clear, grave abuses that nullify constitutional norms. Instead, the Court stepped into the heart of a political process already underway—substituting its own judgment for that of a constitutional majority of the House. It interpreted the one-year bar so broadly that it now disables the very mechanism of impeachment in all but the rarest cases. This ruling, though perhaps well-intentioned, is a clear instance of judicial activism. It turns the Judiciary from a neutral guardian of the Constitution into an arbiter of congressional timing and internal processes—matters the Constitution never assigned to the courts. Judicial activism, if unchecked, becomes judicial supremacy. And that supremacy can, over time, paralyze the political departments that the people themselves empowered. ⸻see comment for cont. 👇🏻

FACTmebaby's tweet photo. READ!!! READ!!! READ!!! 🚨🚨

THE ULTIMATE CALL FROM FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO PUNO

OFFICIAL STATEMENT
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PhilConsa)

On the Supreme Court Ruling in G.R. No. 278353 “Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives, et al.”
July 30, 2025

The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) expresses its serious concern over the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 278353, which nullified the impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. With due respect to the Honorable Court, we believe this decision overreaches constitutional boundaries, disrupts the separation of powers, and weakens Congress’ exclusive authority to hold impeachable officers accountable.

⸻

The Facts Cannot Be Ignored

Between December 2024 and February 2025, four impeachment complaints were filed against Vice President Duterte. The first three complaints, though officially docketed, were never pursued. They were neither found sufficient in form and substance nor referred for committee hearings. On February 5, 2025, a fourth complaint—this time endorsed by 215 members of the House, more than the required one-third—was transmitted as Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, in full accordance with the Constitution.

Yet on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the fourth complaint was barred under the one-year rule in Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, on the theory that the filing of earlier complaints—even if not acted upon—already “initiated” the impeachment process.

⸻

This Interpretation Is Constitutionally Flawed

PhilConsa respectfully but firmly disagrees with this interpretation. The one-year bar rule was designed to prevent harassment through repeated impeachment proceedings—not to protect impeachable officers from ever facing trial by allowing them to take cover behind mere filings. As the Court itself held in Francisco v. House of Representatives, impeachment is only deemed initiated after the complaint is found sufficient in form and substance and referred to the Committee on Justice. The earlier complaints never reached that stage. To treat them as having “initiated” proceedings defies both logic and constitutional intent.

This ruling invites dangerous abuse. It opens the door for impeachable officials—or their allies—to deliberately file weak or premature complaints to “consume” the one-year window and block any real effort at accountability. This is not a safeguard against harassment—it is a blueprint for evasion.

⸻

Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism

This case called for judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The Constitution gave the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try and decide it. These are textual, exclusive powers, and the Judiciary’s role in such matters should be limited to clear, grave abuses that nullify constitutional norms.

Instead, the Court stepped into the heart of a political process already underway—substituting its own judgment for that of a constitutional majority of the House. It interpreted the one-year bar so broadly that it now disables the very mechanism of impeachment in all but the rarest cases.

This ruling, though perhaps well-intentioned, is a clear instance of judicial activism. It turns the Judiciary from a neutral guardian of the Constitution into an arbiter of congressional timing and internal processes—matters the Constitution never assigned to the courts.

Judicial activism, if unchecked, becomes judicial supremacy. And that supremacy can, over time, paralyze the political departments that the people themselves empowered.

⸻see comment for cont. 👇🏻

104

3K

1K

438

205K

junusanmiguel retweeted

Fr. Ranhilio Aquino

@RanhilioAquino

about 1 year ago

When an attempt was made to unseat then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the Supreme Court had occasion to pass upon the meaning of "to initiate" in regard to impeachments. In the 2003 case of Francisco v. House of Representatives, the Court held that "to initiate"

6

665

152

143

62K

Jun SM

@junusanmiguel

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users