The Duterte impeachment Supreme Court decision may disbar lawyers who graduated after 2003.
Unlike Thanos, this did not announce how it obliterated not just VP Sara Duterte’s impeachment, but past impeachments and 21 years of Bar exams on the 2003 Francisco case.
This confusing endgame revolves around our Constitution’s Art. XI, Sec. 3, prohibiting impeachment “initiated” more than once a year.
A verified complaint filed “shall be included in the [House] Order of Business within 10 session days, and referred to the proper committee within three session days.”
Finally, if a complaint is filed by one-third of all congressmen, Senate trial “shall forthwith proceed.”
The endgame began with a complaint filed Dec. 2, 2024, spanning fund misuse, the West Philippine Sea and Davao Death Squad. Two more were filed on Dec. 4 and 19.
The House never “referred” these. Instead, on Feb. 5, 2025, a fourth complaint signed by 240 congressmen was filed. This covered intelligence fund misuse and a threat to assassinate the President.
The date is key. Sec. 3 cites “session” not calendar days. Duterte computed Feb. 5 was in the 10th session day after the first filing.
So what is the Francisco case?
In 2003, the SC blocked Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.’s impeachment.
That court featured legends: Reynato Puno, Artemio Panganiban, Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales. To address perceived bias, they summoned that generation’s constitutional law Dream Team: Jovito Salonga, Pacifico Agabin, Estelito Mendoza, constitutional authors such as Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Florenz Regalado, and young future International Criminal Court judge Raul Pangalangan, the Kobe Bryant behind Michael Jordan. And defendants Senate president Franklin Drilon and complainant Rep. Gilberto Teodoro Jr. were no lightweights.
Francisco interpreted Sec. 3’s key word “initiated.” Per Fr. Bernas, the Constitution’s authors meant a complaint filed and referred to committee. Francisco explicitly emphasized mere filing without initial action is not “initiated.”
With this, the SC blocked Davide’s impeachment because a previous complaint was “initiated” – “filed” and “referred.” Though dismissed, this blocked new complaints for one year under Sec. 3.
Thus, in the 2025 endgame, any Bar passer would cite Francisco. The fourth complaint stands. The first three were never “initiated,” never triggered the one-year bar. In fact, Senate debate instead focused on the trial’s timing after midterm elections.
But the Duterte decision is confusingly written. It does not highlight it retcons the Dream Team; it seems to interpret Sec. 3 for the first time. This key context is buried under 97 pages of background doctrine, readily missed by most lawyers not conscious of the niche Francisco case.
Duterte argues not referring the first three complaints violates the Constitution. These are deemed “initiated” lest inaction circumvent Sec. 3.
This might sound reasonable had Duterte argued this way, plugging Francisco’s loophole.
But Duterte fails to explain why such non-referral blocks a fourth complaint that likewise cited fund misuse, filed within Sec. 3’s 10 session days. Presumably, the House may consolidate complaints and is not forced to refer literally the first filed, such as an intentionally weak complaint.
Duterte argues the fourth complaint is different: it was signed by 240 congressmen while the first three would have gone through committee. This decisive point is discussed in only one of 97 pages, and has no clear basis in the Constitution.
Finally, Duterte fails to explain why the retcon is retroactive (obliterating past impeachments and bar exams).
Duterte secondarily cites lack of “due process,” even imposing elaborate rules hinting congressmen must prove they actually read a complaint.
This is problematic for many reasons. It is not needed to decide the case, based on reinterpretation of “initiated.” It undermines separation of powers.
Due process does not require hearing in both House and Senate. Duterte disbelieves Sec. 3 specifically saying a complaint by 240 congressmen “shall forthwith proceed,” trumping any House due process claim. Or are past trials that proceeded forthwith invalid?
Due process was unsuccessfully raised in Francisco, by Salonga and Panganiban. Why did Duterte go out of its way to reopen this?
The 1987 Constitution purposely expanded SC authority, to rein in elected branches. But this creates an ever-present fear of SC politicization, an Infinity Gauntlet transmuting democratic defeat into victory, guised as constitutional interpretation.
Lamentably, the 2025 retcon is not a Redeem Team, with 97 pages of verbose background discussion that do not clearly frame the retcon or flesh out the actual arguments. Future Avengers may want to let it be known they read these decisions, lest their Bar exams be obliterated unnoticed.
* * *
Oscar Franklin Tan was former chair of the Philippine Law Journal and JCI The Outstanding Young Men and Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World awardee. Francisco was the first SC hearing he watched, as a student inspired by the Dream Team.