SC did not exonerate Sara — De Lima

The fight lives on, said Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, even after the Supreme Court ruled that the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte are unconstitutional.

The former senator and now party-list representative acknowledged that some people might feel dismayed by the ruling.

In a statement, De Lima said, “But let me assure you: this is not vindication. This is not exoneration.”

De Lima emphasized that the SC’s decision was based on technical matters, not the substance of the allegations in the impeachment case, which accused Duterte of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

She urged the public to keep the fight alive, adding, “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 (We should not get used to leaders who are not held accountable for their actions. The fight is not over yet).”

The lawmaker urged people to continue to stand their ground, remain vigilant, and call for a government that is accountable.

On Friday, the Supreme Court declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar on multiple impeachment proceedings against an official and her right to due process.

Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting announced 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 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 6 February 2026.

The SC anchored its ruling on Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution.