‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court bars impeachment vs VP Sara Duterte
Credit to Author: Dominique Nicole Flores| Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:30:00 +0800
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has blocked the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, citing a violation of the constitutional one-year ban on filing multiple impeachment complaints.
Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting announced on Friday, July 26, that the high court’s en banc, in a unanimous decision, declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional.
“The impeachment complaint against VP Sara Duterte is barred by the one-year rule and that due process and fairness apply in all stages of the impeachment process,” Ting said in a press conference.
With the impeachment declared unconstitutional, the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case, according to Ting.
However, the high court clarified that it is not absolving Duterte of the charges, only that a new impeachment complaint may be filed no earlier than Feb. 6, 2026.
Legal basis: The Supreme Court anchored its ruling on Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
Timeline of impeachment complaints. It may be recalled that four impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte within a span of three months.
The first was lodged on Dec. 2, 2024, detailing 24 articles grouped into four main categories: graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes.
Two more complaints followed on December 4 and Dec. 19, 2024, raising similar allegations, including the alleged misuse of confidential funds and betrayal of public trust.
The fourth impeachment complaint was filed on Feb. 5, 2025, by 215 members of the House of Representatives.
Ting further explained that the en banc's decision stems from how the first three impeachment complaints were filed, archived and dismissed before the House adjourned on February 5, the same day the plenary impeached Duterte.
To the Supreme Court en banc, archiving meant that an impeachment proceeding against Duterte was already initiated. Therefore, it believes that the fourth impeachment complaint would serve as initiating another within the same year.
On the 10-session day argument. Ting also said that while the House was able to comply in including the impeachment complaints within 10 session days from endorsement, the Supreme Court argues that the "Constitution does not grant the House secretary general or Speaker of the House any discretion to determine when this period commences."
Due process grounds. She added that the Supreme Court en banc said Duterte as a respondent "should have been given a chance to be heard on the articles of impeachment" before it was transmitted to the Senate. The impeachment complaint and evidence should have also been made available to all members of the House.
"The House of Representatives must be given reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint," Ting said, reading the decision.
The Supreme Court en banc also contends that its duty is to ensure that fairness and due process of law is upheld.
"The end does not justify the means," Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said in the decision he penned.
"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," he added.
During the press conference, Ting clarified that the court's ruling simply means that the House complaint against the vice president is "unconstitutional, null and void."
In effect, the decision invalidates the Senate's June session as an impeachment court, saying it lacked the jurisdiction to convene.
Ting, however, said that the House of Representatives still has the option to file a motion for reconsideration.
While the decision was unanimous, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa inhibited himself from the case, and Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.