Supreme Court junks House bid to revive Sara Duterte impeachment

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed its earlier ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.

Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting announced the decision Thursday, saying the high court denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

“By a unanimous vote of all those participating, the SC En Banc denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House which sought to reverse the decision… that declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional,” Ting said in a press briefing.

The ruling affirms the Court’s July 2025 decision that the impeachment complaints against Duterte were barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all linked to the alleged misuse of confidential funds. None of the complaints reached the Senate.

A fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by more than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives, was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment.

Duterte was impeached in 2025 on charges that included graft and corruption and an alleged assassination plot against then ally and former running mate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Her defense team, however, filed a petition arguing that the earlier impeachment complaints—although only acted upon at the committee level—already constituted impeachment proceedings and triggered the one-year ban under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed and blocked the Senate impeachment trial, ruling that proceeding with it would violate the constitutional prohibition against multiple impeachment attempts within a single year.

The Court said a fresh impeachment complaint against Duterte could only be filed beginning February 6, 2026.

The House of Representatives had sought a reversal of the ruling, arguing that the archiving of the first three complaints happened after the fourth complaint had already been transmitted to the Senate, and therefore did not trigger the one-year ban.