The Supreme Court on Friday put an end to the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, declaring it unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban on multiple impeachment bids and infringing on her right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

The decision came just three days before the State of the Nation Address (SoNA) of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the decision emphasized that even political processes like impeachments must adhere to constitutional safeguards. Two of the 15 justices did not vote on the ruling—one inhibited while the other was on leave.

The 13 justices are Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, and associate justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Inting, Rodil Zalameda, Samuel Gaerlan, Ricardo Rosario, Jhosep Lopez, Japar Dimaampao, Jose Midas Marquez, Antonio Kho Jr., and Raul Villanueva.

Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa abstained while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.

The ruling meant the Senate cannot proceed with the trial, and a new complaint against the Vice President may only be filed from 6 February 2026.

The case stemmed from the four impeachment complaints filed between December 2024 and February 2025 against Duterte.

Three of the complaints—submitted by private citizens and civic groups—were endorsed by House members and filed on 2, 4, and 19 December 2024. A fourth complaint came through a House resolution approved by more than one-third of the members of the 19th Congress on 5 February, triggering the transmission of Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Following the transmission, two separate petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the legality of the process.

In its ruling, the Court concluded that the first three complaints were effectively terminated or dismissed by 5 February, when the House adjourned its session without taking further action.

Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, no impeachment proceedings may be initiated against the same official more than once within a one-year period.

Therefore, the Court said, the 5 February complaint—although filed by one-third of the House—was barred by the one-year rule.

While stressing that the Vice President was not absolved from any of the allegations raised, the Court insisted that constitutional rules must be observed regardless of the political stakes.

“There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time,” the Supreme Court said. “This is what the Rule of Just Law means. This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for an impeachment.”

The Court also ruled that the entire impeachment process was subject to judicial review, noting that it affects the independence of constitutional bodies and must conform to legal standards. It clarified that an impeachment, while political in character, was still a constitutional mechanism that must respect the Bill of Rights, particularly the due process clause and the right to a speedy disposition of cases.

One of the key issues resolved was whether the House had complied with the constitutional requirement to include verified complaints in its Order of Business within 10 session days of endorsement.

The Court found that the House met this requirement, emphasizing that a “session day” refers to the period between a call to order and adjournment, regardless of the number of calendar days.

But the Court criticized the lack of immediate referral of the complaints to the proper committee, stressing that the House has limited discretion under the Constitution. It further required that respondents in impeachment complaints be given an opportunity to be heard before any transmission to the Senate.

This includes receiving copies of the Articles of Impeachment and supporting evidence, and being granted a reasonable time to respond, whether or not they choose to present a defense before the Senate.

The SC also made clear that impeachment complaints must refer to acts committed during the official’s current term and must be grave enough to constitute a betrayal of public trust or offenses defined under Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The Court in its final note, warned against yielding to the expediency of political passions.

“We cannot concede the sobriety of fairness inherent in due process of law to the passions of a political moment,” the ruling stated. “Our fundamental law is clear: The end does not justify the means.”

The decision is immediately executory.

Sara camp welcomes development

The defense team of Vice President Duterte on Friday welcomed the ruling.

“The decision of the Honorable Court affirms what we had maintained from the outset—that the fourth impeachment complaint was constitutionally infirm,” the team said in a statement.

“This unanimous decision has once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process,” they added.

The defense team said they are prepared to address the allegations at the proper time and before the appropriate forum.

Palace respects SC decision

Malacañang has urged the public to respect the Supreme Court after it ruled that the impeachment of Vice President Duterte was “unconstitutional.”

In a message, Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said the Palace had yet to receive a copy of the full text of the SC decision.

“We have yet to review the full text of the decision. We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions,” she said.

“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 added.

In previous statements, Malacañang distanced itself from the impeachment of Duterte, stressing that it was a matter for Congress.

In a previous podcast, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. emphasized that he had no role in the impeachment of the Vice President.

He said he was “too busy” tending to the needs of the nation to strategize against Duterte.

-30-