Resignation vs. Impeachment: Can Sara Duterte Escape Accountability?

By Louis ‘Barok’ C Biraogo — February 8, 2025

WHAT if the country’s second-highest official, facing impeachment, walks away before the trial even begins? This looming move could upend Philippine democracy, exposing deep cracks in its legal and political foundations. As the nation braces for the fallout, we dissect the high-stakes questions that will shape its future.

I. Legal and Constitutional Framework

A. Impeachment Process Under the Philippine Constitution

The 1987 Constitution establishes impeachment as the primary mechanism for removing high-ranking officials accused of serious wrongdoing.

Article XI, Section 3(1): The House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate impeachment.
Article XI, Section 3(6): The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
Article XI, Section 3(7): The only penalties upon conviction are:
1. Removal from office
2. Perpetual disqualification from holding public office

Notably, the Constitution does not specify what happens if the accused official resigns before the trial concludes.

II. The Legal Debate: Does Resignation Terminate the Senate’s Jurisdiction?

A. Argument for Continuing the Impeachment Trial (Jurisdiction is Retained)

Dual-Purpose Nature of Impeachment
- The impeachment complaint contains two prayers:
  - Removal from office (now moot if Duterte resigns)
  - Perpetual disqualification from holding public office (still a live issue)
- Since disqualification is an independent penalty, the Senate retains jurisdiction to resolve this matter even if Duterte steps down.
Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight
- The Senate impeachment court functions as a quasi-judicial body, but it derives its authority from the legislative branch.
- If officials could escape impeachment consequences simply by resigning, impeachment would be weakened as a tool for accountability.
- Allowing the Senate to proceed strengthens legislative oversight over public officials.
Comparative Legal Precedents
- In the United States, impeachment trials have continued even after resignation (e.g., Judge Samuel Kent, 2009). The Senate ruled that resignation does not automatically divest it of jurisdiction.
- In South Korea, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2017 that impeachment proceedings could continue after resignation if the case involved grave offenses affecting the rule of law.
Public Policy and Preventing Strategic Resignation
- If resignation automatically nullifies impeachment, it creates a dangerous precedent where officials can evade accountability by resigning before conviction.
- This loophole could be exploited to protect powerful but corrupt politicians, undermining the credibility of the rule of law.

B. Argument for Halting the Impeachment Trial (Jurisdiction is Lost)

Historical Practice in the Philippines
- In 2011, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez resigned before her Senate trial, leading to the termination of impeachment proceedings.
- The Senate historically interprets its jurisdiction as ending when there is no official left to remove.
Constitutional Silence on Post-Resignation Impeachment
- The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Senate power to try an impeached official after resignation.
- A restrictive interpretation would argue that the Senate’s role is limited to removing an official, not punishing a private citizen.
Risk of Judicial Intervention
- If the Senate continues the trial, Duterte could challenge the proceedings before the Supreme Court, arguing that impeachment only applies to sitting officials.
- This could create a constitutional crisis if the Court strikes down the proceedings mid-trial.

III. Political Implications and Power Struggles

The Marcos-Duterte Rift
- If Duterte resigns before trial, she deprives Marcos Jr.’s allies of the ability to remove her through impeachment, weakening their control over the process.
- Conversely, if the Senate proceeds, it signals a new power shift within Congress, where Marcos Jr. may be consolidating anti-Duterte forces.
Impact on 2028 Presidential Elections
- If Duterte is disqualified, it removes a major contender from the presidential race, benefiting potential Marcos-backed candidates.
- If she survives the trial, she could emerge politically stronger, framing herself as a victim of political persecution.
Risk of Destabilization
- A prolonged impeachment battle, especially if seen as politically motivated, could deepen polarization and trigger public unrest.

IV. Ethical Considerations: Fairness vs. Political Expediency

Legitimacy of the Process
- If the impeachment is perceived as weaponized justice, it could erode public trust in institutions.
- Conversely, if officials can resign to escape accountability, it sets a dangerous precedent for future corruption cases.
Due Process Rights of the Accused
- If the Senate proceeds, Duterte must be given a fair opportunity to defend herself, ensuring that the trial does not become a rubber-stamp decision.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations

A. The Most Likely Scenario

If Duterte resigns, the Senate will face pressure to halt proceedings, citing the Gutierrez precedent.
However, given the political climate, Marcos-aligned lawmakers may push to continue in order to secure a disqualification ruling.
The Supreme Court is likely to intervene if Duterte challenges the trial’s legitimacy.

B. Policy Recommendations

Clarify the Constitutional Process
- Congress should pass legislation or constitutional amendments specifying whether impeachment can proceed after resignation.
Establish Clearer Grounds for Disqualification
- The Senate should define under what conditions an official can be disqualified post-resignation.
Strengthen Anti-Corruption Mechanisms
- The Philippines should expand alternative legal mechanisms (e.g., criminal prosecution) to hold officials accountable outside of impeachment.

VI. Final Assessment

Vice President Sara Duterte’s potential resignation before her impeachment trial presents a high-stakes constitutional test. While historical precedent suggests resignation halts proceedings, the argument for continuing the trial—based on disqualification—has legal merit. The Senate’s decision will set a precedent for how impeachment is used as an accountability mechanism in the future.

This battle is not just legal—it is deeply political. The outcome will shape the balance of power between the Marcos and Duterte factions and define the credibility of the country’s democratic institutions. If the impeachment process is seen as fair and transparent, it could strengthen democratic norms. If it is perceived as a political maneuver, it risks further destabilizing the country.

Boxed Final Answer:
{The Senate has a plausible legal basis to continue impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte even if she resigns, citing the penalty of perpetual disqualification. However, this contradicts past practice, and a Supreme Court challenge is likely. To resolve this ambiguity, lawmakers should enact constitutional or statutory reforms clarifying impeachment jurisdiction post-resignation.}