The National Unity Party (NUP), one of the country’s most dominant political parties and the second-largest in the House of Representatives, has made it a policy not to support any impeachment efforts whether against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. or Vice President Sara Duterte. 

Deputy Speaker Ronaldo Puno, the NUP’s chairperson, dismissed reports of impending petitions to remove both Marcos and Duterte from office, calling it “pointless” and a “waste of time.” 

“I think if it weren’t so serious, the evidence was not so clear, and it seems those who will file the impeachment case are just politicking, we in the NUP won’t pay attention to it,” Puno said in Filipino in a radio interview.

The House leader was also adamant that if an impeachment complaint was successfully filed, especially against Marcos, it would likely languish in the committee on justice, saying that the probability of it meeting the required three-thirds threshold would be low, given that administration allies dominate the lower chamber.

While the lawmaker acknowledged that the House is duty-bound to act on any impeachment complaints, he also argued that there are more pressing issues that require immediate attention, particularly the ongoing investigation into the multibillion-peso flood control anomalies. 

Ouster fatigue

“In Congress, we are already done with impeachment. There are so many problems that haven’t even been resolved yet. We have already spent so much time on it,” he said. “Then what we see is that it’s unclear, and the public probably doesn’t even want it because it’s not getting anywhere.”

Additionally, Puno is convinced that any attempt to remove the two leaders will not succeed, given the Senate’s current position regarding a trial. 

“We all know that it’s going nowhere. Right now, I think it would be difficult for anyone to get impeached in the Senate,” he said. 

One of the key factors contributing to the possible “failed” impeachment attempts, according to Puno, are the new but “complicated” rules and regulations on impeachment proceedings set by the Supreme Court. 

He was referring to the SC’s controversial decision unanimously striking down the impeachment case against Duterte for being “unconstitutional” for violating the one-year bar rule on impeachment complaints.

To recall, the House impeached Duterte on 5 February last year after 215 lawmakers signed the petition, charging her with graft and corruption, bribery, and betrayal of public trust, among other things, over the “questionable” use of her P612.5-million confidential funds and for making a death threat against Marcos and others. 

Prior to that, three impeachment complaints were   filed against the Vice President within barely two weeks in December 2024.

The 215 votes were more than twice the required one-third threshold to bypass committee hearings in the House, paving the way for the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial — a shortcut allowed by the Constitution.

The SC, however, said the Senate had no jurisdiction over the impeachment case since it was void ab initio (from the beginning) for violating Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5, which prohibits the filing of more than one impeachment case against the same official within one year.

The ruling also stated that the transmittal was irregular because the House swiftly advanced the articles to the Senate without plenary action, and that it violated Duterte’s right to due process, as she was robbed of the opportunity to counter the allegations against her. 

SC prodded on ruling

At present, the impeachment case against Duterte remains pending before the SC after the House filed a motion for reconsideration, challenging the high court’s unanimous decision.

The one-year bar on filing a new impeachment complaint against Duterte, which ends in February, prompted calls from legislators for the Supreme Court to resolve questions about the impeachment process.

Several groups have filed a motion for reconsideration of the tribunal’s recent decision to halt the impeachment of Duterte, citing procedures that conflict with the Constitution. 

“The question is whether there is still time for the Court to act before the ban expires,” according to Akbayan Partylist Rep. Chel Diokno.

“From the standpoint of Akbayan, we are strongly calling for its immediate resolution, because this will be a critical factor in determining how any impeachment, whether against officials of the previous or the present administration, will proceed,” Diokno added.