* Decision says 1-year ban violated, but does not absolve VP Duterte
* Complaint can be refiled after a year
* Endorsers rap High Court
THE Supreme Court en banc on Friday ruled that the Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives violated the one-year ban under the 1987 Constitution and due process.
This means the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint and proceed with holding the impeachment trial, SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said in a press briefing Friday afternoon.
“In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court en banc today, July 25, declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Vice Sara Duterte is unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution,” Ting said.
“The SC has ruled that the House impeachment complaint versus Vice President Sara Duterte is barred by the one-year rule and that due process or fairness applies in all stages of the impeachment process,” she also said
“Our fundamental law is clear, the end does not justify the means. There is a right way to do the right things at the right time,” she said, quoting the decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, which was unanimous.
Ting said Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa abstained from voting while Maria Filomena Singh is on leave.
Ting said the ruling does not prohibit the re-filing of the complaint after one year.
“The Court said it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026,” Ting said.
The impeachment trial was supposed to start sometime next month.
The SC ruling, a legal victory for the vice president, could boost Duterte’s political plans for the 2028 presidential elections where she is expected to run. A conviction in an impeachment trial would have barred her from running for any elective post.
Duterte is a daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte who is now detained at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity stemming from allegations of extrajudicial killings during his administration’s bloody anti-drug crackdown.
WELCOME DECISION
The vice president’s defense team welcomed the decision, saying the High Court upheld the rule of law.
“The decision of the Honorable Court affirms what we had maintained from the outset – that the 4th impeachment complaint is constitutionally infirm,” the defense team said in a statement released by the Office of the Vice President (OVP).
“This unanimous decision has once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process,” it added.
The defense team said they are still prepared to address the House’s allegations “at the proper time and before the appropriate forum.”
The en banc ruling was in relation to the petition filed by lawyer Israelito Torreon; Martin Delgra, former chairperson of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board; and several others challenging the legality of the impeachment complaint against Duterte.
Three impeachment complaints were lodged against the vice president in December 2024, all connected to allegations she misused confidential and intelligence funds of the OVP and the Department of Education when she was still the education secretary.
A fourth impeachment complaint was filed in February. This was endorsed by more than the required one-third of the House lawmakers on February 5, and the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate on the same day.
Last month, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court remanded the articles of impeachment to the House.
CHECKS & BALANCES
The House leadership, while vowing to respect the SC decision, warned it would weaken the system of checks and balances in the government.
“To allow judicial interference in the initiation of this process risks undermining the very principle of checks and balances,” said House spokesperson Princess Abante.
“Impeachment is a political act rooted in the people’s will — no legal technicality should silence it,” she added.
Rep. Percival Cendaña (PL, Akbayan) lambasted the High Court, saying it “has reduced itself to being the ‘supreme coddler’ of Vice President Sara Duterte.”
“The dismissal of the impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. Lahat ng tiwaling politiko, pwedeng magtago sa likod ng Supreme Court at takasan ang pananagutan sa sambayanan (All corrupt politicians can hide behind the SC and evade their accountability to the people),” he said.
Akbayan led civil society groups in filing the first impeachment complaint against the vice president in December last year.
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno (PL, Akbayan), a member of the House’s prosecution panel, said the public is the one at the losing end because of the SC decision.
“In this decision, the people lost. Accountability lost,” he said in Filipino.
He added: “Impeachment is about accountability. The process followed the Constitution: the complaint was verified, endorsed by more than one-third of the House … There was no violation of due process, only a demand to present the truth to the Filipino people.”
PRUDENCE, RESTRAINT
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol said the Senate is duty-bound to respect the SC ruling.
“We acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional,” Tongol said.
“The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court,” he added.
He said the ruling affirms the careful and deliberate posture taken by the impeachment court, that constitutional issues surrounding the Articles of Impeachment required clarity before trial proceedings could commence.
“The Court’s ruling validates the prudence and restraint exercised by the Senate majority in recognizing those legal uncertainties from the outset,” he added.
Tongol said the Senate will wait for the formal copy of the SC ruling and any related guidance on the matter.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said Malacañang “has yet to review the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision.”
“We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions. The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates,” she also said.
DEMOCRATIC SAFEGUARD
Abante said the House of Representatives has yet to officially receive a copy of the SC’s decision but vowed that lawmakers will “review it with the utmost respect once furnished.”
“We respect the Supreme Court. But our constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here,” she said.
Abante also the decision will never be a reason for House members to stop performing their duties.
She maintained the impeachment process “is not just a legal mechanism — it is a vital democratic safeguard.”
Abante cited Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which provides that the exclusive power to initiate impeachment rests solely with the House of Representatives.
“This was firmly established in Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003) and has long stood as settled doctrine,” she said.
Abante said the impeachment is not just about one person “but the people’s right to demand accountability from the government.”
She said the House will continue to “exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role.”
“This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity,” Abante said. “We owe it to the people to be relentless in our duty — because accountability should never be optional, no matter how high the office.”
BAR RULE
In ruling that the Articles of Impeachment were barred by the one-year rule, the en banc differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth.
It said that the first three were filed under Article XI, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with the endorsement by any member of the House. The fourth one was through Article XI, Section 3 (4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives.
The en banc took note that the House in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered “dismissed or terminated” upon the adjournment of the House last month.
“The three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on Feb. 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than Feb. 6, 2026,” it held.
According to the decision, the one-year bar is reckoned “from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable.”
The SC also reminded the House that the Constitution clearly requires that a verified impeachment complaint be “immediately put in the Order of Business within ten session days from its endorsement.”
“The Constitution does not grant either the Secretary General or the Speaker of the House any discretion to determine when this period commences. Consequently, the House of Representatives is not granted any discretion, except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days,” it said.
However, it added, the House may opt to consolidate all impeachment complaints properly commenced and endorsed within these periods.
PROCESS
The SC also laid down the due process requirements in impeachment proceedings namely:
* The Articles of Impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared with House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
* The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the impeachment articles.
* The impeachment articles and supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only those who are being considered to endorse.
* The respondent should have been given a chance to be heard on the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to its transmittal to the Senate, despite the number of endorsements from House members.
* The House must be given a reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint.
* The basis of any charge must be impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officers.
The SC said that for the President and Vice President, these must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article XI, Section 2 or a betrayal of public trust given by the majority of the electorate.
ENCROACHMENT
Several senators said the impeachment court will still proceed even after the Supreme Court en banc ruled to halt the impeachment proceedings.
Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said the Senate has the power to do so because as a co-equal branch of government, the Judiciary cannot encroach on the functions of the Legislative branch.
He added: “I was told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision because it tramples over the work of the Senate, which is separate from theirs.”
He stressed that the Senate is a separate, independent body.
Sen. Paolo “Bam” Aquino IV echoed Sotto’s sentiment.
“I firmly believe that the impeachment trial should continue. As a co-equal branch, the constitutional mandate and power of the Senate are clear, so the impeachment process should be respected,” Aquino said, as he called on his colleagues to immediately hold a caucus to discuss the SC decision that he added “disregards our constitutional duty.”
Sen. Joel Villanueva also said he believes that the impeachment court will proceed with the trial.
“Whether the Supreme Court made that decision or not, the impeachment court will proceed. We’ll proceed. And I’m sure someone will raise it during the impeachment proceedings,” he said.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan said that while he finds it difficult to comment on the matter with certainty, he noted that the SC seems to have forgotten that the Senate is a co-equal branch.
“It is difficult to comment with certainty because I have not read the ruling yet but offhand, it seems that the SC has set aside the legal principle of the presumption of regularity of the acts of a co-equal,” Pangilinan added.
CONSEQUENCES
Sen. Risa Hontiveros said she is dismayed over the SC ruling, adding it could raise short-term and long-term consequences.
“One of the things we wonder is how the ‘one-year bar rule’ was violated now that only one case has been brought to the Senate, according to the Supreme Court’s own decision in Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives,” she said.
Hontiveros further said it is worrying that the SC seems to have added too many requirements to begin the impeachment process.
“I can only hope that this new ruling will not adversely affect future efforts to hold our highest public officers accountable. The Constitution is clear — public office is a public trust — at walang opisyal ang may karapatan sa posisyon,” she added.
Duterte ally Sen. Ronald dela Rosa said: “When I moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint vs VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit. When the SC ruled it as unconstitutional, I’m sure they were guided also by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit defeated the forces of evil! Hallelujah!”
Another Duterte ally, Sen. Imee Marcos, asked her fellow senators to respect the SC decision, to stop politicking, and start working. – With Raymond Africa and Jocelyn Reyes
