Skip to content

You said:
Write a dissenting opinion on Sarq Duterte's impeachment case, constitutional provisions on
impeachment, and related readings
ChatGPT said:
Here's a dissenting opinion on Sara Duterte’s hypothetical impeachment case,
incorporating constitutional provisions and relevant readings on impeachment in the
Philippines. This sample is written in the style of a Supreme Court dissenting opinion,
grounded in the 1987 Constitution and relevant legal commentaries.

DISSENTING OPINION
Justice [Your Name], dissenting:
I respectfully register my dissent to the majority opinion upholding the impeachment of Vice
President Sara Duterte. While this Court must uphold the integrity of public office, we must also
guard against the misuse of impeachment as a political weapon. The Constitution establishes
impeachment not as a tool for partisan retribution, but as a solemn mechanism to remove
officials for culpable violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. (1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 2)
The majority has, in my view, extended the scope of “betrayal of public trust” beyond its
constitutional moorings, transforming it into an amorphous and dangerously flexible standard
that now threatens to undermine the very stability and independence the impeachment process
was designed to protect.

I. Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

The 1987 Constitution, under Article XI, Section 2, provides:
"The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust."
The threshold for impeachment is deliberately high. As Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986
Constitutional Commission, emphasized in his commentary, the inclusion of "betrayal of public
trust" was intended to capture serious misconduct not necessarily criminal in nature, but it
was never intended to be used as a catch-all for unpopular policies or political
disagreements. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary,
2009)
In this case, the acts imputed to Vice President Duterte—whether related to her alleged misuse of
confidential funds, policy disagreements with the President, or political posturing—do not rise
to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution.
II. Betrayal of Public Trust: A Misapplied Standard
The majority’s ruling rests on the finding that the Vice President committed a "betrayal of public
trust." Yet, this term, though broad, must be applied within the limits of grave misconduct in
the performance of official duties. Mere errors in judgment, unpopular decisions, or
administrative lapses are not sufficient.
As the Supreme Court noted in Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15 (2001), the political
nature of impeachment does not allow for the arbitrary removal of officials based on public
opinion or media narratives. Impeachment must remain anchored in legal standards, not shifting
political winds.
To impeach the Vice President based on alleged excessive spending of confidential
funds without clear evidence of graft or corruption—or any criminal wrongdoing proven
under due process—risks turning the impeachment mechanism into a tool of political
convenience. This is inconsistent with the framers’ intent, as recorded in the Records of the
Constitutional Commission, which repeatedly emphasized the need to balance
accountability with due process and stability in government.

III. Political Context Cannot Supersede Constitutional Safeguards

In the past, the impeachment process has been marred by partisan maneuvering. The framers
sought to avoid such abuses by restricting the frequency of impeachment (only once a year
per official, Art. XI, Sec. 3[5]) and by requiring substantial thresholds for both initiation and
conviction. These safeguards exist precisely to ensure that only the gravest infractions
warrant removal from office.
The charges against Vice President Duterte, when closely examined, are reflective of political
disagreements and contested interpretations of budgetary discretion, not willful
violations of the Constitution or manifest corruption.
To allow her removal under such circumstances would set a dangerous precedent, where every
political misstep, administrative dispute, or budgetary controversy becomes fertile ground for
impeachment. This would chill the independence of elected officials, especially those not aligned
with the majority coalition.

IV. Conclusion
The Constitution demands accountability, but it also demands fairness and restraint. The decision
to uphold Vice President Duterte’s impeachment is, in my considered opinion, constitutionally
infirm, politically motivated, and democratically perilous. We must not allow
impeachment to become a weapon of attrition in the ongoing contest of partisan politics.
Accordingly, I vote to declare the impeachment null and void for failure to establish any
constitutionally defined impeachable offense.
[Signed]
Justice [Your Name]
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the Philippines

Suggested Readings & References:

 Joaquin G. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary (2009)
 Fr. Joaquin Bernas, A Living Constitution (2003)
 Raul Pangalangan, Constitutional Law (UP Law Center)
 Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15 (2001)
 Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (2003)
 Records of the Constitutional Commission (1986)

If you need a version of this with citations formatted for academic work, or if you'd like it adapted
for use in a legal memo, op-ed, or student paper, let me know.
By messaging ChatGPT, you agree to our Terms and have read our Privacy Policy.
Don't share sensitive info. Chats may be reviewed and used to train our models. Learn more
Attach
Search
Voice
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Yesterday
You said
Write a dissenting opinion on Sarq Duterte's impeachment case, constitutional provisions on
impeachment, and related readings
Copilot said
Certainly. Here's a dissenting opinion on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara
Duterte, grounded in constitutional provisions and relevant jurisprudence:
🧭 Dissenting Opinion on the Impeachment Case Against Vice President Sara Duterte
⚖️Constitutional Framework on Impeachment
The 1987 Philippine Constitution outlines the impeachment process under Article XI, Section 3,
which provides:
 Grounds for Impeachment: Culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
 Initiation Process:
o A verified complaint may be filed by any citizen with endorsement from a House
member (Sec. 3[2]).
o Alternatively, a complaint may be filed directly by at least one-third of House
members (Sec. 3[4]).
 One-Year Bar Rule: “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year.” (Sec. 3[5])
🧩 The Majority Decision
On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the impeachment complaint
against VP Duterte was unconstitutional, citing:
 Violation of the one-year bar rule due to multiple complaints filed within the same year.
 Denial of due process, as the House allegedly mishandled the timeline and
procedures12.
Dissenting View: Why the Impeachment Should Have Proceeded
1. Misinterpretation of “Initiation”
The Court treated the filing of multiple complaints as equivalent to “initiation.” But jurisprudence
(e.g., Francisco v. House of Representatives, 2003) clarifies that initiation occurs only when
the complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice. In this case:
 The first three complaints were never referred.
 The fourth complaint, signed by over one-third of House members, was the only one
“initiated.”
Thus, the one-year bar should not apply.
2. Due Process Was Observed
The House followed constitutional timelines:
 The fourth complaint was filed and transmitted on the same day (Feb 5, 2025).
 The Supreme Court acknowledged that the House met the 10-session-day rule34.
Due process applies to the accused, but it also protects the public’s right to accountability.
Archiving the case prematurely denies the people their constitutional remedy.
3. Judicial Overreach
Impeachment is a political process with legal safeguards, not a purely judicial matter. The
Court’s intervention, while constitutionally permitted, should be restrained unless there is clear
abuse. In this case, the House acted within its discretion and rules.
4. Public Interest and Accountability
The allegations against VP Duterte—misuse of confidential funds, threats against officials—are
serious. Dismissing the case on procedural technicalities undermines the spirit of impeachment
as a tool for accountability.
As Rep. Joel Chua stated, “It is the people who are denied due process”5.
📚 Related Readings and Jurisprudence

Title Summary

Francisco v. House of Repre Clarified that “initiation” of impeachment occurs upon referral to
sentatives (2003) the Committee on Justice.

1987 Constitution – Article Provides the legal basis for impeachment, including grounds, pr
XI ocedures, and limitations.

Supreme Court Decision (July Declared the impeachment unconstitutional due to multiple filin
25, 2025) gs and alleged procedural lapses1.

Would you like this turned into a formal legal brief or speech format? I can also help draft a
rebuttal to the majority opinion or prepare talking points for a public statement.

1 sc.judiciary.gov.ph2 www.esquiremag.ph3 PhilStar Global | MSN4

Inquirer.net | MSN5 Inquirer.net | MSN

Edit in a page
Quick response
Sign in
Try Smart mode
Uses GPT-5 to think deeply or quickly based on the task.