The Supreme Court (SC) required Vice President Sara Duterte and other petitioners to comment on the motion filed by the House of Representatives (HOR) to reverse the decision that declared unconstitutional the articles of impeachment filed against her.

VP Duterte and other petitioners led by lawyer Esraelito Torreon were asked to file their comments within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the resolution that was issued by the SC during its full court session on Tuesday, August 5.

It was not known immediately if the required comments on the motion for reconsideration may effectively postpone the enforcement of SC’s July 25 decision which it had declared immediately executory.

In its unanimous decision signed by 13 justices, the SC declared that the impeachment complaint filed by the HOR on Feb. 5, 2025 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.

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.”

In its motion filed Monday afternoon, August 4, the HOR said all its actions on the impeachment of VP Duterte were all in accordance with relevant constitutional provisions and in line with jurisprudential standards.

It said there was “no neglect or willful inaction in relations to the first three impeachment complaints, and that they were handled within the applicable constitutionally sanctioned time periods.”

It also said the fourth impeachment complaint filed by at least one-third of the HOR members was not in violation of the one-year ban. It noted that what was filed was the fourth impeachment complaint that caused the one-year ban to take effect.

Also, the HOR said there was no violation of due process in the fourth impeachment complaint since “the due process contemplated by the Constitution in impeachment has always been that which occurs before the Senate – the trial proper.”

At the same time, the HOR challenged the SC’s decreed new rules to be followed in impeachment proceedings, and the new doctrines on the reckoning point of the one-year ban and what may trigger it.

“At most, the Honorable Court can only apply and enforce these new rules prospectively in the commencement of future impeachment complaints,” it said.

It also said that the SC “cannot utilized these newly formulated rules, safeguards, or guidelines to say that the House violated the due process clause and acted with grave abuse of discretion just because it did not comply with the new prescriptions as set forth in the decision” as “it would simply be unfair.”

Also, the HOR asked the SC “to uphold the Constitution, which gives life to all the institutions of government, and with the people, who in turn, are the true sovereign, and to whom all accountability, trust, and power are owed.”

It also told the SC that it respects the High Court’s power of judicial review to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

But it pointed out that “this expanded power is not absolute, unlimited, nor all encompassing” and “like other powers bestowed by the Constitution, it is limited by the foundational document itself.”

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 Torreon, and residents of Davao City.

In its July 25 decision, the SC also 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.”