While the process will be tedious, nothing in the law bars the filing of simultaneous impeachment complaints against both President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte.

What the Constitution prohibits is the filing of more than one impeachment case against the same official within one year.

On the impeachment of the two highest officials of the land, it will be up to Congress to sort out the process, according to retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.

Azcuna cited a constitutional provision that authorizes Congress to adopt rules to address situations in which simultaneous filings against different officials are made.

“Which one to take up first? Will they take it out together? It’s up to them,” Azcuna interpreted the provision.

While VP Duterte is being accused of misusing intelligence funds, the manipulation in the national budgets during Marcos’ term will likely be the grounds for removing the President, as it may constitute a betrayal of public trust.

House Senior Deputy Minority Leader and Caloocan 2nd District Rep. Edgar Erice said the involvement of executive branch officials in the diversion of funds in the 2025 national budget implicated the President.

There were members of the Cabinet who were involved in either intervening in the flood control projects or inserting items into the National Expenditure Program (the President’s budget), which may make Marcos liable “to the extent that the President participates in the budget-making process,” Azcuna said.

He indicated that it is the President who recommends the budget under the NEP and who files and signs the finalized General Appropriations Act.

“The participation of the President could entail a betrayal of public trust where the budget is basically flawed with defects because betrayal of public trust is a vast ground adopted from the US, which is similar to the term due process, a term of calculated vagueness,” Azcuna said.

“It can cover almost anything that can be the basis for losing trust in a public official,” he pointed out.

The former magistrate also cited the principle of command responsibility, “which was adopted from the law of humanitarian warfare.”

Command responsibility arises when a subordinate commits an irregularity, and the superior knew about it but failed to prevent it.

Liability is also incurred if the President did not know that they were doing it, but later learned of it and failed to investigate or render punishment.

“If he was in a position to know but he was negligent in not knowing, he is still liable under command responsibility,” Azcuna underscored.

Still, the legal sage said proving that President Marcos committed such a violation would be difficult because the burden of proof is on the accuser.

But he warned that Malacañang’s excuse won’t stick.

The usual Palace response to allegations that the President was part of the corruption scandal was to point out that he exposed the overpriced and nonexistent flood control projects.

Azcuna explained that this defense is not valid since “he can be considered guilty on the level of personal liability, which involves his personal act of knowingly approving a defective budget.”

The fact remains that the President knowingly signed the spending plan that spawned the corruption and later exposed the scheme without once invoking his veto power to stop it.