The House Committee on Justice, voting 22-10 on Monday, set aside the first impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, ruling that it violated the Constitution’s one-year prohibition on initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official.

The complaint, filed by former activist lawmakers and civil society groups and endorsed by the Makabayan bloc, was submitted on 2 Feb. 2026 — four days before the 6 Feb. 2026 date referenced in a 25 July 2025 Supreme Court (SC) ruling.

The committee, chaired by Atty. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro of Batangas, after three hours of deliberations, divided the House on a motion to set aside the complaint.

“With 22 votes in the affirmative and 10 votes in the negative, with zero abstention, the Chair sets aside the first impeachment complaint, the Castro et al impeachment complaint, on the ground of violation of one-year prohibition period. So ruled,” Luistro declared.

The debate centered on whether the Feb. 2 filing fell within the one-year constitutional bar under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, chair of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability and member of the Justice Committee, warned that the panel must resolve the timing issue before proceeding further.

“Otherwise, this will all be inutile, useless, if eventually this will again be used in the court to question the legality and constitutionality of this first impeachment complaint,” Chua said.

Quezon City Rep. Jesus “Bong” Suntay emphasized that the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision used the word “commenced,” not “initiated.”

“Commenced ang ginamit na salita, hindi initiated. The filing of a complaint commences the impeachment proceeding. So, very clear then that no impeachment proceeding may be commenced prior to Feb. 6,” Suntay said.

Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Lordan Suan echoed that position, stressing that the high court was explicit.

“The Supreme Court did not speak casually. If a complaint was filed on 2 February 2026, four days prior to 6 February 2026, then we must confront a fundamental question. Are we within the constitutional window?” Suan said.

He added: “The one-year prohibition, therefore, is a constitutional shield, not a technical obstacle.”

Committee vice-chair Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores, who formally moved to set aside the complaint, invoked rules of statutory construction: “What is expressed puts an end to what is implied.”

Opposing the motion, Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon argued that impeachment is deemed “initiated” only upon referral to the Committee on Justice — not upon filing.

“As such, the first impeachment complaint against the Vice President should not technically be precluded by the one-year bar as it was filed only prior to 6 February 2026 and not initiated prior thereto,” Ridon said, noting the referral occurred on 23 Feb.

Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez also defended the timing of the filing, arguing that computation of the one-year period — whether by calendar or session days — placed the 2 Feb. complaint within constitutional bounds.

“Clearly, the 2 Feb. filing is within the constitutional provisions,” Rodriguez said, calling the matter a threshold issue grounded in constitutional supremacy.

The majority, however, sided with the view that the filing itself constituted the prohibited commencement.