(Part 1)
“The Constitution does not specify what happens if the accused official resigns before the trial concludes”
WHAT if the country’s second-highest official, facing impeachment, walks away before the trial even begins?
This looming move could upend Philippine democracy, exposing deep cracks in its legal and political foundations. As the nation braces for the fallout, we dissect the high-stakes questions that will shape its future.
I. Legal/Constitutional framework
Impeachment process
The 1987 Constitution establishes impeachment as the primary mechanism for removing high-ranking officials accused of serious wrongdoing.
Article XI, Section 3(1): The House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate impeachment.
Article XI, Section 3(6): The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
Article XI, Section 3(7): The only penalties upon conviction are:
Removal from office
Perpetual disqualification from holding public office
Notably, the Constitution does not specify what happens if the accused official resigns before the trial concludes.
II. The legal debate
A. Argument for continuing the Impeachment Trial
Dual-Purpose Nature of Impeachment
The impeachment complaint contains two prayers:
Removal from office (now moot if Duterte resigns)
Perpetual disqualification from holding public office (still a live issue)
Since disqualification is an independent penalty, the Senate retains jurisdiction to resolve this matter even if Duterte steps down.
Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight
The Senate impeachment court functions as a quasi-judicial body, but it derives its authority from the legislative branch.
If officials could escape impeachment consequences simply by resigning, impeachment would be weakened as a tool for accountability.
Allowing the Senate to proceed strengthens legislative oversight over public officials.
Comparative Legal Precedents
In the United States, impeachment trials have continued even after resignation (e.g., Judge Samuel Kent, 2009). The Senate ruled that resignation does not automatically divest it of jurisdiction.
In South Korea, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2017 that impeachment proceedings could continue after resignation if the case involved grave offenses affecting the rule of law.
Public Policy and Preventing Strategic Resignation
If resignation automatically nullifies impeachment, it creates a dangerous precedent where officials can evade accountability by resigning before conviction.
This loophole could be exploited to protect powerful but corrupt politicians, undermining the credibility of the rule of law.
B. Argument for halting the Impeachment Trial
Historical Practice in the Philippines
In 2011, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez resigned before her Senate trial, leading to the termination of impeachment proceedings.
The Senate historically interprets its jurisdiction as ending when there is no official left to remove.
Constitutional Silence on Post-Resignation Impeachment
The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Senate power to try an impeached official after resignation.
A restrictive interpretation would argue that the Senate’s role is limited to removing an official, not punishing a private citizen.
Risk of Judicial Intervention
If the Senate continues the trial, Duterte could challenge the proceedings before the Supreme Court, arguing that impeachment only applies to sitting officials.
This could create a constitutional crisis if the Court strikes down the proceedings mid-trial.
(To be continued)
