Unconstitutional: The reasons for the decision

The Supreme Court (SC), the highest court of the land, has declared that the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara were unconstitutional based on two grounds: the fourth complaint was barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Philippine Constitution.

- Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez

Rational men and women should never make comments without reading the decision first and then the Philippine Constitution. I did read the 97-page decision dated July 25, 2025 on that very day itself. As a member of the Bar, and professor of Law since 1977, I have read the Constitution a thousand times, and now I conclude without fear of plausible contradiction that I cannot disagree with the decision of the SC.

The case was a consolidation of two petitions, namely GR 278353, entitled Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives and the Senate, et al and GR 278359, entitled Atty. Israelito Torrion and many others vs. House and the Senate. The landmark decision is a well-written masterpiece by one of the best constitutionalists in the country today, the 13th dean of the UP College of Law, Senior Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen,

Justice Leonen, a human rights lawyer, who was the first one appointed by the late president Benigno Aquino III to the highest court of the land. He was not a Duterte appointee. The decision starts by declaring that impeachment, even if it is sui generis and a political process, is subject to judicial review because it is also a legal process within the framework of law outlined by the Constitution. The nonchalant attitude of the House that it is an internal affair of the legislature beyond the realm of judicial scrutiny, has been demolished by the SC.