The Supreme Court recently handed down a landmark ruling in favor of Vice President Sara Duterte, dismissing the impeachment complaint filed against her. At the heart of the controversy were four impeachment complaints filed in succession.
The first three, filed in December 2024, were endorsed by several members of the House. A fourth was filed later in February 2025, this time backed by at least one-third of the House membership, allowing it to proceed directly to the Senate under Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the first three complaints were transmitted to the archives.
The Court ruled that the earlier complaints had already initiated the impeachment process and that the subsequent fourth complaint violated the one-year bar rule under Section 3(5) of Article XI, which prohibits more than one impeachment proceeding against the same public official within a one-year period.
It is important to underscore that the Court did not rule on the merits of the complaints. The decision focused solely on whether the Constitution had been faithfully followed, and it found that it was not. A key factor in the Court’s ruling was the handling of the first three impeachment complaints.
These were filed, verified, and endorsed by House members but were not immediately referred to the Speaker nor calendared in the Order of Business within the prescribed time. Instead, they remained with the Secretary General, who later explained that some members had requested a delay to allow time for more endorsements or the filing of a more comprehensive fourth complaint.
While the House has the authority to craft rules to carry out its constitutional duty, these internal rules must still operate within the parameters of the Constitution. The Court found that delaying the referral of the initial complaints circumvented constitutional timelines as well as the rationale and spirit of the one-year bar rule. In effect, the non-action on the initial complaints deprived the House, in plenary session, of the opportunity to deliberate and act on them.
To be fair, the House of Representatives defended what it considered its paramount duty under the Constitution — to determine the mode and manner of initiating impeachment proceedings.It anchored its actions on its internal rules and past jurisprudence interpreting when an impeachment complaint is considered initiated. But the Court held that while these positions were not without basis, constitutional due process — including the mandatory timelines for referral and calendaring — trumped all procedural discretion.
Credit must be given to the Supreme Court for the courage of its decision. Under the steady leadership of Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the Court spoke with one voice, unanimously asserting the primacy of the Constitution over convenience.
The Chief Justice, known for his quiet resolve and constitutional fidelity, shepherded a decision that not only resolved a legal controversy but strengthened institutional safeguards at a critical moment in our democratic life.
The High Court’s intervention was grounded on its expanded jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, which empowers and mandates the judiciary to nullify any grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of government. This does not mean the judiciary is superior to the legislature. It merely affirms that all branches are bound by the same fundamental law and are subject to constitutional limits.
In upholding the Vice President’s position and related petitions, the Court reinforced the principle that even in a process as inherently political as an impeachment, the rule of law must prevail. Impeachment is still a legal process, albeit with political characteristics. Constitutional safeguards exist precisely to prevent political passions from overwhelming the stability that our legal system ordains.
The decision is not a rebuke of Congress, nor does it diminish the House’s constitutional authority to initiate impeachment proceedings. Rather, it is a reminder that even the best of intentions must yield to constitutional procedures. The House remains a cornerstone of our democracy, and its members are stewards of the people’s will. What this decision ensures is that such will is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.