Updated: July 25, 2025   9 P.M.

The Supreme Court (SC) declared unconstitutional the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives (HOR) before the Senate, as impeachment court, against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The SC declared that the impeachment complaint is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, the SC ruled that the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings, the High Court's Office of the Spokesperson stated in its summary of the decision.

The SC said its decision is immediately executory and is deemed served on petitioners and released upon publication in its website.

The decision issued on Friday, July 25, was written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caquioa inhibited while Associate Justice Filomena D. Singh was on official leave.

The SC, however, clarified that “it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting Feb. 6, 2026.”

The summary stated that the case stemmed from four impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Duterte with the first three complaints filed before the HOR by private individuals and groups on Dec. 2, 4, and 19, 2024.

The fourth complaint was approved by more than one-third of the HOR members on Feb. 5, 2025 and the Articles of Impeachment was transmitted to the Senate on the same day.

Among the articles of impeachment against Duterte are alleged malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds, bribery and corruption, unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets, and involvement in extrajudicial killings.

Two petitions were filed before the SC against Duterte’s impeachment.

Last February, the Vice President asked the SC to nullify the impeachment complaint for constitutional violation.

Another petition against the impeachment was filed by several lawyers, led by Esraelito P. Torreon, and residents of Davao City.

Both petitions were ordered consolidated by the SC in its resolution issued last July 8.

In its decision, the SC said that all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review, “considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process.”

It also said: “The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure but with political characteristics. It may be sui generis (of its own kind) but it is not a purely political proceeding. This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases, applies to the entire impeachment process.”

It explained that while the SC does not determine whether an impeachable officer may be removed or disqualified from political office, it emphasized that “it has the duty to construe the process mandated in the Constitution.”

The SC clarified that the first three impeachment complaints were filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with an endorsement by any HOR member. The fourth one, it said, was through Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the HOR members.

It noted that the HOR in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered “terminated or dismissed” upon the adjournment of the HOR.

“The three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026,” it stressed.

It pointed out that the one-year ban under the Constitution is reckoned “from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable.”

A key issue in the petitions is whether the HOR complied with the ten session-day requirement under the Constitution for including a verified impeachment complaint in the Order of Business of the HOR, the SC said.

It said the HOR was able to comply with the requirement by “putting the three endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives” since a session day is not equivalent to a calendar day. “It is a period that starts from a call to order until the session is adjourned, regardless of the passage of time,” it also said.

However, the SC reminded the HOR that Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution “clearly requires that a verified impeachment complaint be immediately put in the Order of Business within ten session days from its endorsement.”

It said the Constitution does not grant either the Secretary General or the Speaker of the House “any discretion to determine when this period commences.”

Thus, it said the HOR is not granted any discretion “except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days.” However, it also said, the HOR may opt to “consolidate all impeachment complaints properly commenced and endorsed” within these periods.

The SC, also in its decision, laid down the due process requirements in impeachment proceedings, namely:

1. The Articles of Impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared with House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.

2. The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.

3. The Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only those who are being considered to endorse.

4. The respondent in the impeachment complaint 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.

5. The House of Representatives must be given a reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint. The SC, however, has the power to review whether this period is sufficient, but petitioner—who invokes the Court’s power to review—should prove that officials failed to perform

their duties properly.

6. The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts 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. For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy.

7. To ensure that respondent in the impeachment complaint is heard under the requirement of due process in the procedure under Article XI, Section 3(4), the House of Representatives is required to:

(a) Provide a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and its accompanying evidence to the respondent to give him/her an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period to be determined by the House rules. The Constitution only requires an opportunity to be heard. It is up the respondent to waive this fundamental right and opt to present his/her evidence at the Senate trial;

(b) Make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the House of Representatives. It is the House—not one-third of the House— that has the sole prerogative to initiate impeachment complaints. Thus, there must be some modicum of deliberation so that each member representing their constituents can be heard and thus convince others of their position. The transmittal, however, will only take place upon the qualified vote of one-third of the House.

The SC declared: “It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law. We cannot concede the sobriety of fairness inherent in due process of law to the passions of a political moment. Our fundamental law is clear: The end does not justify the means.”