‘No vindication’: De Lima hits SC for voiding impeachment vs Sara Duterte
Credit to Author: Dominique Nicole Flores| Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 19:04:00 +0800
MANILA, Philippines — Rep. Leila de Lima criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment as unconstitutional as “questionable” and “unprecedented.”
In a statement on Friday, July 25, De Lima said the ruling was made without the high court requesting the House of Representatives’ comment as a respondent to the petition.
“The House of Representatives, the principal respondent in the case, was not given the opportunity to file a formal Comment as required by Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. No such order was issued by the Court,” said De Lima, a lawyer and former Justice secretary.
Instead of directing the lower chamber to comment on the petition, she said the Supreme Court ordered the lower chamber to provide it with an overly specific laundry list of documents on Duterte’s impeachment.
De Lima called the high court’s directive a “rare move,” if not irregular.
“Somehow, the Supreme Court treated the House’s compliance with this interrogatory as if it were a formal responsive pleading. But let’s be clear: it was not,” she said.
While she said she respects the high court, she stressed that in cases “of this magnitude” — where a high-ranking official like the vice president faces allegations beyond corruption — what is needed is “clarity, not shortcuts.”
“The public deserves an explanation. The Court must account for this serious departure from established rules of procedure,” De Lima said.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duterte’s petition to nullify her impeachment on the basis of “due process grounds” and the one-year bar rule.
Duterte’s defense centered on this argument, and the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the fourth impeachment complaint breached the constitutional rule allowing only one impeachment proceeding per official each year.
The Supreme Court argued that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints against the vice president on February 5 marked the end of an impeachment proceeding. In other words, there is reason to believe a proceeding was initiated.
When 215 lawmakers endorsed a fourth complaint that same day, the court ruled it as a second impeachment proceeding within the same year — which is barred under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court also held that the House failed to meet due process requirements, including giving Duterte the opportunity to respond to the articles of impeachment before transmitting them to the Senate.
Ironic. De Lima pointed out the irony that while the high court said Duterte should have been given a chance to be heard, it did not afford the same courtesy to the House by seeking its comment as a respondent.
“The decision is basically an ex-parte decision, a very prohibited action among judges when the rules require the parties to be given the opportunity to be heard first,” she said.
RELATED: ‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court bars impeachment vs VP Sara Duterte
But all in all, the court maintains that the decision does not absolve Duterte “from any of the charges against her.” And De Lima agrees.
“To those discouraged: I understand your dismay. But let me assure you: this is not vindication. This is not exoneration,” she said.
“Walang naburang kasalanan. Walang nalinis na pangalan,” she added. (No wrongdoings were erased. No name was cleared.)
The vice president was charged with graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution and other high crimes, which included bribery and conspiracy to commit murder.
These allegations primarily stem from the House probe that questioned the P612 million confidential funds spent by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
De Lima asserted that the Supreme Court’s decision hinged on technicalities — the same argument Duterte’s camp had relied on even before the impeachment court. The serious allegations against her, however, remain unresolved.
“We must not let this ruling numb our sense of justice. Hindi tayo dapat masanay sa mga lider na hindi napapanagot. Hindi pa tapos ang laban,” she said.
(We should not grow used to leaders who are never held accountable. The fight is not over.)
The House may still file a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court, or heed its advice to file the articles of impeachment again on Feb. 6, 2026 — when the one-year bar rule is lifted.