The Supreme Court of the Philippines has unanimously ruled that the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte is unconstitutional, effectively halting the Senate's scheduled trial. In a 13-0 decision handed down Friday and immediately executory, the High Court declared the Articles of Impeachment invalid.
SC spokesperson Camille Ting confirmed the ruling, stating, “the Supreme Court en banc declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte are unconstitutional.” She further explained the Court's rationale: “The Supreme Court has ruled that the House impeachment complaint versus Vice President is barred by the one-year rule and that due process or fairness applies during all stages of the impeachment.” Consequently, “Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings,” Ting added.
Loading...
"One-Year Rule" Invoked
The core of the ruling rests on the "one-year rule" stipulated in the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
The decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, differentiated between four impeachment complaints filed against the Vice President. The first three were filed by various groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024. The fourth complaint, which became the basis for transmittal to the Senate, was lodged via a resolution approved by more than one-third of House members on February 5, 2025.
The Court ruled that the first three complaints were “archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed” on February 5, 2025. This means, according to the ruling, no new complaint against VP Duterte can be initiated until after February 6, 2026, effectively barring the most recent complaint.
Due Process and House Procedures Under Scrutiny
Beyond the one-year rule, the Supreme Court also emphasized that due process and fairness must apply at all stages of impeachment proceedings. The ruling highlighted that the one-year ban is counted from the time a complaint is dismissed or rendered no longer viable.
The Court issued several guidelines to the House of Representatives to ensure fairness in future impeachment proceedings, including requirements that:
- Articles of Impeachment and supporting evidence must be shared with all House members for endorsement.
- Evidence must be sufficient to support charges.
- The respondent must be given an opportunity to respond to charges and evidence before transmittal to the Senate, regardless of the number of endorsements.
- The House must allow reasonable time for independent deliberation.
- Charges must involve impeachable offenses committed within the current term and be of sufficient gravity.
For complaints filed by at least one-third of House members, the respondent must be provided a copy of the Articles and evidence, allowed reasonable time to respond, and both evidence and respondent’s comment must be circulated to all members prior to the one-third vote for transmittal.
Not an Acquittal, But a Procedural Halt
At the press conference, Ting clarified that the Court's decision does not delve into the merits of the allegations against Vice President Duterte. “Our ruling does not absolve petitioner Duterte from any of the charges. Any ruling on the charges against her can only be accomplished through another impeachment process, followed by a trial and conviction by the Senate,” she stated, quoting the SC.
The Court underscored its role in upholding legal principles, asserting: “It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law.” It added, “The end does not justify the means. There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. This is what the Rule of Just Law means. This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.”
While a motion for reconsideration may still be filed, the ruling is immediately executory.
Background of the Impeachment Complaint
The House of Representatives impeached Vice President Duterte in February 2025. The move was primarily triggered by an alleged threat she made during a November 23 online news conference, where she reportedly spoke of having President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez assassinated if she were killed amid their political rift. Duterte later clarified her remark was an expression of concern for her safety, not a threat.
Other allegations in the complaint included graft, corruption, sedition, terrorism, and failure to support Philippine efforts against China's actions in the West Philippine Sea. She was also accused of supporting her father Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war, which allegedly led to extrajudicial killings in Davao City. Notably, among those who signed the impeachment resolution were Rep. Sandro Marcos, the president’s son, and former House Speaker Romualdez.
The Senate had briefly convened as an impeachment court last month but returned the complaint to the House citing constitutional concerns, with allies of Duterte arguing the "one-year bar" applied due to earlier filings.
Duterte, 47, is widely considered a strong contender for the 2028 presidential elections. She was elected vice president in 2022 alongside President Marcos but resigned from her Cabinet post as education secretary in 2024 amidst growing political tensions between their factions.
The Supreme Court concluded its decision by reminding that constitutional limits on impeachment serve to prevent its abuse for political ends and to ensure fairness and respect for the rights of the accused. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa inhibited from the case, and Associate Justice Filomena Singh was on leave.
Maki-balita sa Philippines Today sa Facebook, Twitter, Instagram at YouTube!
0 Mga Komento