LAW1828455

RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE vs. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES ET. AL.

I. Problem

An impeachment complaint was filed by then Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea

against President Rodrigo Roa Duterte on the ground that the latter divulged the

country’s military secrets to Xi Jinping during his visit to China to attend the Boao

Forum for Asia in 2018. Said act according to Medialdea constituted as treason which

is one of the grounds for impeachment and punishable under Article 114 of the Revised

Penal Code (RPC).

In his complaint, Medialdea testified that President Duterte designated him as the

“officer-in-charge” from April 9 to 12 of 2018 during which he was tasked under

Special Order 310 to take care of day-to-day operations in the Office of the President.

On April 9, 2018, Medialdea received a call from President Duterte asking the former

to direct the Chief of the Navy, Vice Admiral Empedra, to furnish a copy of the

Maritime Defense Plan for Scarborough Shoal and other disputed areas and deliver it

to the President at once via secured communication. Medialdea then transmitted the

order to Empedra who then delivered the documents to Malacañang and was

subsequently sent from Philippines to China.

Medialdea also testified that he was able to secure Duterte’s diary where it is evident

from the writing that the latter harbors sympathies and conviction disloyal to his

country’s policy and interest shown from the words “I look forward to the day where

Philippines will form part of China’s territory.”

The House of Representatives Committee on Justice found the complaint sufficient in

form and substance and was sent to plenary where the body reached an overwhelming

vote enough to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to Senate.

Rodrigo Duterte, represented by Atty. Larry Gadon, filed a motion for certiorari,

prohibition, and injunction, to enjoin the Senate from pursuing with the impeachment

trial averring that Treason is a war crime and thus it can only be committed in times of

war.
II. Issue

The issue before us now is undoubtedly of transcendental importance. The issue

presented by both petitioner and respondents raise a pure question of law and can be

narrowed down to whether or not treason as an impeachable offense requires that it be

committed in times of war.

III. Petitioners

Petitioner argues that treason can only be committed in times of war. Petitioner cited

Justice Perfecto’s concurring opinion in Laurel vs. Misa stating that “Treason is a war

crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot be committed in peace time. While there

is peace, there are no traitors. Treason may be incubated when peace reigns.

Treasonable acts may actually be perpetrated during peace, but there are no traitors

until war has started.”

There being no war, actual hostilities, or even antagonistic relations with China when

the alleged treasonable act was committed, President Duterte cannot be impeached on

the ground of treason for failing to satisfy one of its elements.

Petitioner also contends that the diary presented as evidence is inadmissible for

violating Duterte’s right to privacy and for falling under the doctrine of fruit of the

poisonous tree. Lastly, Petitioner contends that respondents failed to satisfy the two-

witness rule required to prove treason.

IV. Respondents

Respondents argued that the acts of Duterte satisfied the elements of Treason under

Article 114. It is submitted that Duterte is a Filipino citizen who adheres to China as

manifested not only in the diary but also in his public statements; and that he gave said

country aid and comfort by providing said country the Maritime Defense Plan which is

classified as a military secret.

Respondents further submit that while it is true that decisions on treason by the

Supreme Court often involves the Philippines being at war, nowhere in the RPC nor in

jurisprudence requires that the Philippines be in an actual state of war. Justice

 Perfecto’s assertion is only found in the concurring opinion which, as a rule, not

controlling.

V. The Courts Ruling

Treason is a crime against national security punishable under the RPC and a ground for

impeachment of high-ranking officials as provided in the Constitution. In our recent

decision, we held that impeachment procedure is analogous to a criminal trial but is not

a criminal prosecution per se. While the Rules of Procedure provide for the suppletory

application of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in an impeachment proceedings, a strict

application of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is not required in impeachment

proceedings1. A careful reading of the deliberations will show:

MR. MAAMBONG. In the matter of presentation for example, of evidence, when

it comes to treason and bribery, would the rules on criminal procedure be applied,

considering that I am no particularizing on the ground which is punishable by the

Revised Penal Code, like treason or bribery?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, but we will notice that, strictly speaking for the crime of

treason under the Revised Penal Code, he is answerable for that crime somewhere

else. xxx. But we can be more liberal when it comes to the impeachment

proceedings, xxx. 2

Therefore, we hold in affirmative that treason as an impeachable offense under the

Constitution may be committed in times of peace and that the two-witness rule need not be

required in this case. Strict application of the elements in impeachment grounds is not

required considering the highly political nature of such proceedings. It must be noted that

a president may not be tried and prosecuted for any civil or criminal suit during his tenure.

Ruling in the negative while supposing the allegations were true, this without prejudice to

any subsequent proceedings, is detrimental to national security considering that treason is

an attack against the very existence of the state.

1
Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, et al.
2
Record of the Constitutional Proceedings and Debates, 277
 We also would like to reiterate that treason is the highest of all political crimes3 for it

contemplates disloyalty and breach of allegiance against the host country hence the penalty

of reclusion perpetua to death is imposed in case one is found guilty.

Considering the controversial and special circumstance of this case, we thus rule that this

case be pro hac vice and not be taken as precedent.

WHEREFORE, the petitions for prohibition and injunction is hereby DENIED. No cost.

3
U.S. v. Abad