House panel flags confusion in SC rulings on one-year impeachment bar

The House Committee on Justice on Monday flagged confusion arising from recent Supreme Court (SC) issuances on the one-year bar in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, citing differing reckoning dates in the high tribunal’s decision and a subsequent resolution.

The issue stems from the SC’s July 2025 decision, which stated that the one-year prohibition begins on 5 February, and a 29 January resolution that altered how a “session day” is counted.

House Committee on Justice Vice Chair Ysabel Maria J. Zamora of San Juan said the discrepancy has created uncertainty over when the one-year bar should properly apply.

“Now why is there a confusion? Because in the resolution recently issued, the Supreme Court changed the counting, the reckoning, the counting of the term session day. Why is it important? The session day before was considered to be one that starts, one that begins with the session and then ends upon adjournment of the session,” Zamora said.

A lawyer and former member of the House prosecution panel during the 19th Congress that impeached Duterte, Zamora explained that under the previous interpretation, a session day could span more than one calendar day. However, the high court’s resolution declared that, for impeachment purposes, a session day is equivalent to a calendar day.

“Now the timeline by the Supreme Court was adjusted. Again, in their decision with all due respect to the Supreme Court, its differwnt in their resolution. That's the confusion,” Zamora said.

She elaborated that the resolution appears to compute the one-year bar from the filing of the first impeachment complaint on December 2.

“Doon po sa resolution, parang binabanggit na as of the resolution, barred na kasi January, kino-compute po nila ang filing noong first impeachment complaint which was on December 2. Bilang po sila na ang ending po noon, January 15, ang reckoning point. Kaya po magpa-file ngayon kasi that's the first session day after the period, after the issuance of the resolution which was on the 28th. Kaya po may nag-file ngayon. Doon po ‘yung kalituhan. Again, in the dispositive portion of the decision dated July last year, February 5 naman po ang reckoning date,” she said.

House Committee on Justice Chair Atty. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro echoed the concern, saying the House now faces uncertainty over which reckoning period governs the one-year bar.

“It depends which decision you are referring to. Kasi if we are referring to the original decision of the Supreme Court, ang basis ng running of the 1-year prohibition period is the impeachment complaint filed via 1/3 that was filed on February 5. That's why they're saying 6 February 2026, p’wede nang mag-file ng second impeachment,” Luistro said.

“However, if you are referring to the resolution recently issued by the Supreme Court, they were saying that the first impeachment complaint that was 2 December 2024, because of inaction of the House, was deemed initiated when the period of 10 session days lapsed. That was 14 January of 2025 and that is why by implication, 15 January 2026, nag-lapsed na ang 1-year prohibition period. So we are in a crossroad again. Which are we going to follow? Is it the reckoning period of February 5 or is it the reckoning period of 2 December? I hope that this can be clarified by the Honorable Supreme Court,” Luistro added.

House Committee on Justice Vice Chair Jonathan Keith T. Flores of Bukidnon said the absence of a clear computation in the resolution further compounded the confusion.

“It’ds true, there's confusion as to when the one-yesr ends. But it all starts with the definition of the session day. Kasi kahit ang Supreme Court, nalito. On their decision [last year], tama ang session day. It was filed timely kahit ang 1/3 na pinirmahan ng mga members of Congress. But sa resolution naman on January, bumaliktad sila without necessarily admitting na mali sila,” Flores said.