Impeachment occupies a serious and carefully guarded space in Philippine constitutional law. It is not a political weapon of convenience, but a constitutional mechanism designed to remove the highest officials of the land.
These officials include the President and the Vice President, and they are impeachable only for grave offenses such as culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution is explicit: the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, while the Senate alone has the authority to try and decide them.
Before any impeachment complaint reaches the House plenary, it must first pass through the House Committee on Justice. There, it is subjected to a crucial two-part test: form and substance.
Form asks whether the complaint was filed correctly — properly verified, endorsed, and compliant with procedural requirements. Substance asks a far more consequential question: assuming the allegations are true, do they actually amount to an impeachable offense under the Constitution?
This screening stage is critical. Impeachment is not meant to settle political grudges or ventilate partisan frustrations. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Francisco v. House of Representatives, constitutional safeguards exist precisely to prevent harassment and abuse.
Once an impeachment complaint is filed and referred, no other complaint against the same official may be initiated within a year. This rule is designed to prevent the weaponization of the impeachment process and to protect institutional stability.
Furthermore, while the House enjoys broad discretion in crafting its impeachment rules, that discretion is not unlimited. In Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice, the Supreme Court affirmed the committee’s authority to determine sufficiency in form and substance, but made clear that this review is not a mere rubber stamp. It is a substantive constitutional duty that must be exercised with discernment and restraint.
These principles are now playing out in real time. Earlier this week, the House Committee on Justice found two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. sufficient in form but insufficient in substance, effectively halting the process unless the full House votes to overturn the finding.
Meanwhile, new impeachment complaints have been filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated an earlier attempt due to procedural defects. These, too, must undergo the same rigorous constitutional scrutiny.
Taken together, these developments explain and underscore why the form-and-substance requirement matters. It preserves impeachment as an extraordinary remedy, not a political shortcut — or politics by other means.
It filters out complaints that are procedurally flawed or legally hollow, while protecting both accountability and stability in our democratic system.
In the end, impeachment works only if it remains anchored in law, evidence, and constitutional purpose.
When stripped of discipline, restraint, and fidelity to purpose, it ceases to be a safeguard and becomes a political show.