The House of Representatives is set to adopt new rules for impeachment consistent with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to ensure no loophole can be exploited with a fresh impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, an administration lawmaker said Sunday.

Tingog Rep. Jude Acidre announced the move ahead of the filing of a new impeachment complaint against Duterte once the one-year bar rule lapses on 6 February.

“I’m sure when things are procedural, and there’s greater clarity on the part of the House and more clear guidelines from the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, I don’t think it’s going to affect the final result, which is to make sure that we have a strong impeachment complaint should an impeachment be filed in the House,” Acidre said.

The House leader expressed confidence that amending impeachment rules will help ensure any future cases against the vice president are “procedurally airtight and built on clear guidelines” to avert a potential recurrence of the botched impeachment case filed against Duterte last year during the 19th Congress.

“Once we approve the rules, because we haven’t approved the rules for impeachment yet for the 20th Congress, that would be more or less cognizant of the direction set already by the Supreme Court and its latest jurisprudence. But nonetheless, that is not to preempt what the final resolution would be on the pending motion for reconsideration,” Acidre added.

In July last year, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the impeachment case overwhelmingly passed by the House against Duterte on 5 February, deeming it “unconstitutional” for violating the one-year bar rule on impeachment cases.

The court also flagged procedural issues, including that the complaint was filed and adopted on the same day, raising concerns that lawmakers might not have had ample time to peruse the impeachment case before endorsing it to the Senate for trial.

Despite the ruling, the legal dispute over the impeachment has yet to be fully resolved, as the House filed a motion for reconsideration contesting the decision.

The controversial verdict drew criticism from pro-impeachment lawmakers and former SC associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, who argued the court overstepped by introducing requirements not explicitly in the Constitution, such as circulating the complaint among lawmakers before signatures are affixed.

The House’s stance echoed Azcuna’s. Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Adiong—an administration ally—agreed with Acidre that the Supreme Court decision focused on procedural technicalities, not the substance of the impeachment complaint.

“But let me just clarify that the petition, I mean the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the impeachment, was more on the technicality and not on the merits of the case that we have filed,” Adiong said on Sunday.

The SC ruled the House’s expedited fourth impeachment violated Duterte’s right to due process, as she was deprived of the opportunity to counter allegations, and the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate was irregular.

The ruling further stated that when the 19th Congress ended without acting on the first three complaints, those cases were “effectively terminated and dismissed,” marking the start of the one-year bar.

The House prosecution panel, however, maintained that the one-year bar was “never circumvented” because the fourth complaint only initiated when it secured more than one-third of votes, a prerequisite in the impeachment process.

To recall, the House impeached Duterte on 5 February last year after 215 lawmakers signed the petition, charging her with graft, corruption, bribery, and betrayal of public trust over the use of her P612.5 million in confidential funds and a death threat to Marcos.

Three impeachment complaints were also filed against the vice president in December 2024. The 215 votes exceeded the one-third threshold required to bypass committee hearings, allowing the transmittal of the articles to the Senate—a shortcut permitted by the Constitution.

The SC ruled the Senate lacked jurisdiction over the case, declaring it void ab initio for violating Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5, which prohibits more than one impeachment case against the same official within a year.

Acidre and Adiong said the House will formulate robust rules that comply with whatever position the Supreme Court adopts, potentially setting a standard for the next Congress if the court rejects their motion for reconsideration.

“Without conceding the pending motion for reconsideration, we will have to come up with rules that are ‘Supreme Court-proof’ and, in a way, cognizant with what the indications presented in the latest ruling on the third mode,” Acidre said.

“But what we can assure you is should there be any adoption of new rules covering impeachment processes and procedures, this would be in compliance,” Adiong added.