TWO House leaders, including a member of the 11-man House Prosecution Panel, who signed the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday asserted that her trial can validly proceed even after the transition to the 20th Congress, citing historical precedent from the United States.
“Opo, kaya nga po ito po’y tinapos namin at filed na, dahil, eto po ang bola po ay nasa Senate na at ‘yung Senate po pupwede na po nilang i-hear ito base po dun sa Articles of Impeachment na aming na-filed,” Manila Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the House prosecution team, said in Monday’s media briefing.
Chua, chairman of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, pointed out that in the U.S., impeachment cases have crossed congressional sessions and proceeded to trial in the next Congress.
“Alam ninyo sa Amerika nangyayari ‘yan, nakaka-apat na rin yata kung saan sa ibang Congress na-file ‘yung impeachment, sa next Congress doon na-try ‘yung impeachment. So ito po’y hindi naman bago, nangyari na rin po ito sa Amerika,” Chua added.
Tingog Party-list Rep. Jude Acidre supported Chua’s statement, citing the case of former U.S. President Bill Clinton.
“Idadagdag ko lang ‘yan, ‘yan ang nangyari kay Bill Clinton. Si Bill Clinton, dating Pangulo ng USA ay na-impeach nung 105th Congress. Tapos ang trial niya ay nangyari nung 106th Congress, Senado ng 106th Congress,” Acidre explained.
The rules on impeachment in the Philippines are largely patterned after the U.S. impeachment system, but with some key differences.
Acidre further noted that the Philippine Constitution clearly distinguishes legislative and non-legislative functions, and impeachment falls under the latter.
“Katulad ng sinabi ni Chairman Chua, the Constitution actually makes a distinction between the legislative and non-legislative function of Congress, at ito pong ating impeachment power ay kasama po ito sa non-legislative,” Acidre said.
He emphasized that non-legislative functions are not bound by the regular transitions of Congress.
“Ang aming school of thought po is non-legislative functions ay hindi po bound ng mga tinatawag nating temporal iterations ng Kongreso,” Acidre expressed.
Acidre also cited constitutional provisions that assign specific roles to each chamber of Congress in the impeachment process.
“Klaro po ‘yung konstitusyon, the House has the exclusive right to impeach. The Senate has the sole power to try and hear cases of impeachment,” he said.
With the Articles of Impeachment already transmitted to the Senate, Acidre emphasized that it is now the Senate’s duty to carry out its constitutional role.
“Ngayon na nasa Senado ang Articles of Impeachment, and incumbent upon the Senate to try and decide on the case,” he stressed.
The impeachment of Clinton serves as a direct precedent, having been impeached by the 105th U.S. Congress on December 19, 1998, with his Senate trial commencing on January 7, 1999, during the 106th Congress. The trial concluded with his acquittal on February 12, 1999.
This example reinforces the argument that an impeachment process does not expire simply because a new Congress is convened.
According to Chua and Acidre, the principle applies to the Philippines, where the House of Representatives’ impeachment power remains intact despite a congressional transition.
