The Supreme Court’s (SC) 13-0-2 ruling on Friday declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional upended the opportunists and destabilizers who were priming for the divisive process to attain their crooked objective.
It was an indictment of the persecution by a ruling clique that targeted individuals they picked, similar to the previous use of the process to unjustly oust a Supreme Court Chief Justice.
The SC emphasized the strict adherence to constitutional rules, such as the one-year bar on multiple impeachment complaints and due process requirements for those who would resort to removing opponents, especially those who were popularly elected.
The ruling emphasized the constitutional safeguards against procedural abuses or rushed, politically motivated complaints, indicating that such acts face judicial scrutiny.
The ruling clarified that the SC did not absolve VP Duterte of the allegations in the impeachment complaint, but that it acted solely on the procedural and constitutional defects of the process.
It provided that a new, properly filed impeachment complaint could be initiated after 6 February 2026, when the one-year bar expires.
Political motivations were exposed despite the legal setback, particularly in the polarized environment, which included the surrender by the government of former President Rodrigo Duterte to an international tribunal that the country is not even a member of.
Among the outcomes of the petition filed by VP Duterte and her allies was that it clearly defined the period during which the impeachment complaint was activated.
It indicated that the one-year bar under Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 was breached.
The first three complaints, filed on 2, 4 and 19 December 2024, were considered “initiated” as they met the requirement of being included in the House’s Order of Business within 10 session days.
These were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on 5 February 2025, when the House endorsed the fourth complaint.
“In light of the archiving, dismissal, or rendering of the first three complaints as functus officio, the Articles of Impeachment filed on 5 February are therefore barred because of the violation of the one-year ban,” stated the ruling.
It added that it was not up to the House of Representatives to determine the start of the process arbitrarily.
“The Constitution does not grant either the Secretary General or the Speaker of the House any discretion to determine when this period commences. Consequently, the House of Representatives is not granted any discretion except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days,” according to the magistrates.
The decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, also cited the Vice President being denied due process.
VP Duterte was not provided with the draft Articles of Impeachment and accompanying evidence, denying her the opportunity to be heard before the articles were transmitted to the Senate.
The complaints were declared “null and void.”
The High Tribunal reminded the House that an “impeachment may be sui generis, but it is not a purely political proceeding. This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause and the right to a speedy disposition of cases, applies to the entire impeachment process.”
In sum, the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings, according to the SC.
The ruling came as a breath of fresh air amid the destructive feud that sparked the move to oust the second highest official of the land.
It raised the bar for the procedure, discouraging frivolous or poorly executed impeachment attempts henceforth.