On the criminal charges of grave threat against VP Sara Duterte
The validity of Sara Duterte’s indictment for grave threat is being questioned in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 146486, March 4, 2005). According to the ruling, an “impeachable officer cannot be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses which constitute grounds for impeachment”. In applying such ruling in relation to the indictment of Sara Duterte, the following points should be considered:
September 7, 2026
NUPL
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers is a nationwide voluntary association of human rights lawyers in the Philippines, committed to the defense, protection, and promotion of human rights, especially of the poor and the oppressed.

LEGAL POINT OF VIEW

By Atty. Ephraim Cortez

The validity of Sara Duterte’s indictment for grave threat is being questioned in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 146486, March 4, 2005). According to the ruling, an “impeachable officer cannot be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses which constitute grounds for impeachment”. In applying such ruling in relation to the indictment of Sara Duterte, the following points should be considered:

1. It must be emphasized that Sec. 2, Art. XI does not grant immunity to the impeachable officials. It simply provides that these impeachable officials may be removed from office only through impeachment.

2. The ruling in Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals should be contextualized based on the above-cited constitutional provision. 

3. In this context, what is being avoided is a situation where an impeachable official has to be removed from office as a consequence of the imposition of a penalty upon conviction for a criminal offense.

4. The ruling is not a grant of immunity to impeachable officers during their incumbency. The Supreme Court cannot expand what the 1987 Constitution provides. Notably, a Supreme Court pronouncement carries the legal presumption that it conforms to the Constitution. 

5. As a result, except for the President, who is expressly immune from suit during his incumbency, the other impeachable officials can be criminally investigated and indicted in Court while they are in office. 

6. In the absence of such immunity, Sara Duterte was properly investigated and indicted. Upon her indictment in Court, the appropriate processes defined under the Rules on Criminal Procedure were applied, resulting in the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest against her, which compelled her to post bail.

7. At this stage, the Court has no other option but to allow the process to be observed, considering that a criminal proceeding may only be suspended if restrained and/or enjoined by the appellate court. There is no TRO or injunction.

8. It must be pointed out that at this stage, and even if the case goes to trial, the constitutional requirement that she can only be removed through impeachment will not be violated. 

9. This holds even if she is convicted while she is still Vice-President. She can appeal the conviction and remain on temporary liberty under his bond. On appeal, she can remain in office.

10. If convicted and the conviction becomes final while she is still Vice-President, only the penalty of imprisonment can be implemented. The accessory penalty of temporary disqualification from holding public office will not be imposed, since she can be removed only by impeachment.

11. Finally, the process of impeachment is a mechanism for accountability. It is not designed to shield erring impeachable officials from criminal prosecution during their incumbency.

Photo credit: Inquirer.com

Read more

TO ALL THOSE TAKING THE BAR EXAMINATIONS BEGINNING TODAY, we honor the long and difficult work that has brought you to this moment.

TO ALL THOSE TAKING THE BAR EXAMINATIONS BEGINNING TODAY, we honor the long and difficult work that has brought you to this moment.

Behind every examinee are years of study, sacrifice, doubt, discipline, and persistence. As you enter the examination rooms, we wish you the best of health, soundness of mind, steadiness under pressure, and resilience for the days ahead. May you find the clarity to draw upon what you have learned, the composure to meet each question as it comes, and the resolve to keep going through fatigue and uncertainty.

LUDICROUS!!!

LUDICROUS!!!

Using the perjured statements of military assets, the government alleged that the Cagayan Valley activists supplied rice to NPA rebels by burying the rice in the hinterlands of Cagayan. The military assets allegedly provided the information to locate the place where the rice were buried. These were excavated, and the rotten rice is being used as a basis to file the case for terrorist financing.

Hands Off Bicol People’s Lawyer Atty. Bart Rayco!

Hands Off Bicol People’s Lawyer Atty. Bart Rayco!

At approximately 6:00 a.m. today, staff at Jollikod, a local eatery in Legazpi City owned by the family of Atty. Bartolome “Bart” Rayco, discovered two bullets ominously left at the entrance. The bullets were bound with black ribbons, one tethered to a piece of stone wrapped in paper and plastic. The paper contained a threatening message that read: “Atty. Bart Rayco MALAPIT KA NA!!” (Atty. Bart Rayco, your end is near!!!). Earlier, witnesses reported seeing unidentified men on a motorcycle stop outside the premises at around 4:00 a.m.

Share This