SC still unanimous: VP impeachment void
The Supreme Court affirmed its July 2025 decision declaring that the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte was unconstitutional for violating the constitutional bar against initiating more than one impeachment against the same official within a one-year period.
Voting 13-0, the high court said in a Jan. 28 ruling made public on Thursday that its resolution “denied with finality” the motion for reconsideration from the House of Representatives, shutting the door to further appeals.
“The resolution is immediately executory. No further pleadings shall be allowed,” the court said as it “noted” that similar appeals and related motions had been filed by several groups and former Justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, who supported Duterte’s impeachment.
The high court, however, underscored that its July 25, 2025, decision “did not absolve” Duterte of the alleged offenses that she allegedly committed as contained in the impeachment complaint.
“At the House’s discretion, the grounds raised in the Articles of Impeachment may again be raised based on any evidence that may have been discovered,” read the 50-page ruling authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
The Vice President was accused of culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust for, among others, her alleged misuse of confidential funds and her death threat against President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Core dispute
The core of the constitutional dispute was the question of when an impeachment complaint is “initiated” to trigger the one-year ban after four impeachment complaints against Duterte were filed separately—three in December 2024 and the fourth, overwhelmingly supported by 215 House members, in February 2025.
The court unanimously ruled that the fourth impeachment complaint, transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025, was prohibited under Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the Constitution, stating that “no impeachment shall be initiated against the same person more than once within a period of one year.”
Central to the motion for reconsideration of the House is that the impeachment had not been initiated prior to the fourth complaint because the three others were never referred to the House committee on justice.
The first three impeachment complaints were not included in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.
The House explained that session days only refer to the days of legislative business.
‘Session Day’ defined
But the court ruling said that “session day” meant any calendar day in which the House holds a session.
“Neither the secretary general nor the Speaker of the House is granted by the Constitution any discretion to determine when this period commences. Neither does the House of Representatives have any discretion except to refer the matters to the proper committee within three session days,” the court said.
The Supreme Court said that the lawmakers violated the 1987 Charter when the first complaint was not immediately endorsed to the justice committee within the required period.
“Here, the 10 session days should be reckoned from the filing and endorsement of the first impeachment complaint on December 2, 2024. Thus, respondent House had until January 14, 2025, to include it in the ‘Order of Business’ and until January 21, 2025, to refer it to the proper committee,” the court said.
‘Fundamental difference’
It pointed out that since the first impeachment complaint failed to comply with constitutional period, “any succeeding complaints are barred,” citing Article XI, Sec. 3(5) of the Constitution.
“As Justice Ramon Paul Hernando raised during deliberations, any delay in the proceeding is immoral,” it added.
The high court clarified that there was a “fundamental difference” between the first three complaints, which were done in accordance to the “first mode” of initiating an impeachment, and the fourth complaint, which adhered to the “second mode.”
Under the first mode, an impeachment is set in motion when the articles of impeachment, filed by either a House member or a private individual, are referred to the committee on justice. The second mode is when at least a third of House members endorses the articles of impeachment and sends them to the Senate for trial.
But even with multiple complaints, as in Duterte’s case, the Constitution does not give priority to any modes of triggering an impeachment, the court said.
“The process of gathering support for impeachment complaints under the second mode is not constitutionally prohibited, even while the House is considering complaints filed under the first mode,” it said.
The court also said that due process of law should be applied even in impeachment, rejecting arguments that Duterte’s rights to life, liberty and property would not be affected by her conviction by the Senate impeachment court.
“The phrase ‘right to life, liberty, or property’ should not be read with undue literalism,” the court ruled. “The due process clause embodies the fundamental constitutional commitment to reasonableness, fairness, and nonarbitrariness.”
Doctrine of operative fact
It also rejected the “doctrine of operative fact” invoked by the House, sought the implementation of the court’s July 2025 decision on future impeachment complaints. The House argued that the application court’s ruling on the Duterte case “would simply be unfair.”
It said that the doctrine “does not apply in every case where parties invoke it.”
Camille Ting, the high tribunal’s spokesperson, added: “The operative fact doctrine cannot be invoked by the party directly responsible in the commission of an unconstitutional act.”
The 13 justices who participated in the decision-making all voted against the House’s motion for reconsideration. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa took no part while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
