2 months ago
18
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
The resignation of an impeached official before conviction raises a critical legal question: Should the Senate continue the impeachment trial, or should it be considered moot?
With no clear answer in the 1987 Constitution or the Senate’s impeachment rules, the issue remains a gray area, open to legal and political interpretation.
The Constitution is silent
The 1987 Constitution outlines the impeachment process but does not specify what happens if an impeached official resigns before a verdict is reached.
The key issue is whether the Senate can continue the trial after resignation of the impeached official to determine if the official should be disqualified from holding future office. Since the Constitution does not explicitly require or prohibit a post-resignation trial, it falls upon the Senate to decide.
What do the Senate rules say?
The Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials set the guidelines for impeachment trials. However, the Senate Rules is silent as to whether the trial must stop if the impeached official resigns during the course of the trial.
Because there is no explicit rule stating that impeachment trials must stop upon resignation, the Senate has the discretion to amend or supplement its current rules to address the situation where the impeached official resigns during the course of the trial.
Arguments for and against continuing the trial
The concerned parties can present compelling arguments to argue whether or not trial should continue after the resignation of the impeached official.
- Why it should stop
Impeachment is primarily for removal. If the official already resigned, then the trial serves no purpose. A trial would be a waste of time and government resources since the official is no longer in office.
The public may see the trial as politically motivated rather than about accountability.
- Why it should continue
Impeachment is not just about removal — it’s also about disqualification. If the Senate stops the trial, the official can return to public office in the future.
Resignation should not be an escape from accountability. If stepping down automatically cancels impeachment, this could possibly set a dangerous precedent. Countries, like the U.S. and Brazil, have continued impeachment trials after resignation to ensure accountability.
With both sides presenting valid arguments, it will be up to the Senate to make the final decision.
Can SC stop Senate?
If the Senate continues the trial, the resigned official may challenge the decision before the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to review the actions of any branch or instrumentality of the Government to determine if there has been a grave abuse of discretion committed by the questioned branch or instrumentality of Government.
The Supreme Court can only intervene and nullify the Senate’s decision if there is “grave abuse of discretion” — meaning the Senate acted arbitrarily or violated the clear provisions of the Constitution.
In Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (2003), the Supreme Court invalidated the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. for violating the one-year impeachment rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution. In Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 193459 (2011), the Supreme Court refused to stop the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez ruling that impeachment is a “political question.”
Based on these two cases on impeachment, it appears that the Supreme Court will only use its power of judicial review if there is a clear violation of the provision of the Constitution amounting to grave abuse of discretion.
However, because the Constitution is silent on post-resignation impeachment, it is unclear if the Supreme Court would consider it a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Senate if it continues with the trial even after the resignation of the impeached official.
US impeachment cases
In the United States, there have been cases where impeachment trials continued even after resignation.
In 1876, William Belknap, who served as US Secretary of War from 1869 to 1872 under President Ulysses S. Grant, was impeached for corruption. The U.S. Secretary of War resigned just minutes before being impeached. Despite his resignation, the U.S. Senate still proceeded with the trial but failed to reach the required two-third majority vote for conviction.
In 2021, the U.S. Senate continued with President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial even though he was no longer in office. President Trump was acquitted as the vote fell short of the required two-third majority vote for conviction.
Who decides?
At the end of the day, the Senate will decide whether to continue or stop the trial. If they proceed, the resigned official can challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court rules that the Senate acted within its powers, the trial will continue. If the Supreme Court finds that the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion, the trial may be stopped or eventually declared to be a nullity.
Since this situation has never been ruled upon in the Philippines, any Supreme Court decision on the matter will set a legal precedent for all future impeachment cases.
With no clear constitutional provision or Senate rule on whether impeachment trials must stop after resignation, the issue remains a gray area in Philippine law. The Senate has the power to make and interpret its own rules, and decide whether to continue the trial.
The Supreme Court, if asked to intervene, will determine whether the Senate exceeded its constitutional authority.
Whichever way this issue unfolds, one thing is certain: it will shape how future impeachments in the Philippines are handled. – Rappler.com
Reginald A. Tayag is a partner of Ocampo Uy Santos Tayag and Danganan.
