VP Duterte 1-year bar sparks House debate

The House Committee on Justice has flagged confusion over the one-year bar on filing impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, following recent Supreme Court (SC) issuances that appear to contradict each other. The dispute centers on when the one-year period actually begins, creating uncertainty for lawmakers and legal observers.

The issue stems from the SC’s July 2025 decision, which stated that the one-year prohibition starts on 5 February 2025, after a previous complaint had been filed by more than a third of House members. However, a later resolution issued on 29 January, redefined what counts as a “session day,” complicating the reckoning of the one-year period.

San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora, vice chair of the committee, explained the confusion. “Why is there confusion? Because in the recent resolution, the Supreme Court changed how session days are counted. Previously, a session day could span multiple calendar days, starting with the session and ending at adjournment. Now, for impeachment purposes, one session day equals one calendar day,” she said.

She added, “According to the resolution, the one-year bar was calculated from the filing of the first impeachment complaint on December 2, 2024. They counted the ending as January 15, 2025. That’s why some parties are filing new complaints now — the first session day after the period defined in the resolution, issued on 28 January. But in the July 2025 decision, February 5 was the reckoning date. That’s the source of the confusion.”

Committee Chair Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, also a former House prosecutor during Duterte’s previous impeachment proceedings, said the House now faces uncertainty over which reckoning period applies. “If we follow the original Supreme Court decision, the one-year bar runs from the complaint filed on February 5, 2025. That’s why filings can resume on February 6, 2026,” she explained.

“However, if we go by the January resolution, the first impeachment complaint filed on December 2, 2024, is considered initiated only after the 10-session-day period lapsed, which was January 14, 2025. By implication, the one-year bar ended on January 15, 2026. So we are at a crossroads: do we follow February 5 or December 2? We hope the Supreme Court clarifies,” Luistro added.

Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores, another vice chair of the committee, said the lack of a clear computation in the resolution worsened the confusion. “There’s genuine uncertainty about when the one-year period ends. It all comes down to the definition of a session day. Even the Supreme Court seems to have been unclear,” he said.

The committee’s discussion comes amid the recent filing of fresh complaints against Duterte. Legal experts say that depending on which reckoning method is applied, the timing of these new complaints could be challenged in court. Observers note that the SC’s attempt to clarify technical points like session days inadvertently created more questions, leaving lawmakers, legal teams, and the public uncertain about procedural deadlines.

Zamora emphasized that clarity is critical for both fairness and public trust. “The one-year bar exists to prevent repetitive or politically motivated filings. But if the calculation is unclear, it can either unfairly block legitimate complaints or allow filings prematurely. We need definitive guidance from the Supreme Court,” she said.