Reactions to SC ruling: Palace urges ‘respect’ amid indignation
The Supreme Court decision on Friday declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional drew mixed reactions from lawmakers, legal experts and other stakeholders.
The following are their statements, presented in full or in part:
Malacañang Press Officer Claire Castro:
We have yet to review the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision. We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions.
The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates.
Senate Impeachment Court spokesperson Regie Tongol:
We acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional.
The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court.
This decision affirms the careful and deliberate posture taken by the Impeachment Court—that constitutional issues surrounding the Articles required clarity before trial proceedings could commence. The Court’s ruling validates the prudence and restraint exercised by the Senate majority in recognizing those legal uncertainties from the outset.
We now await the formal transmittal of the Supreme Court’s decision and any related guidance that may affect the Impeachment Court’s jurisdiction moving forward.
The Senate remains committed to upholding constitutional order, ensuring due process, and protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions.
House spokesperson Princess Abante:
We respect the Supreme Court. But our constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here.
The impeachment process is not just a legal mechanism — it is a vital democratic safeguard. Under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, the exclusive power to initiate impeachment rests solely with the House of Representatives. This was firmly established in Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003) and has long stood as settled doctrine.
To allow judicial interference in the initiation of this process risks undermining the very principle of checks and balances. Impeachment is a political act rooted in the people’s will — no legal technicality should silence it.
Defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte:
We welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution.
The decision of the Honorable Court affirms what we had maintained from the outset—that the 4th impeachment complaint is constitutionally infirm.
This unanimous Decision has once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process. We remain prepared to address the allegations at the proper time and before the appropriate forum.
Sen. Joel Villanueva:
Whether the Supreme Court made that decision or not, the impeachment court will proceed. We’ll proceed.
I’m sure someone will raise it during the impeachment proceedings. For sure, someone will raise it. But sui generis ang impeachment court. So we will proceed. So these are all questions that will be raised with the decision of the Supreme Court.
Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno:
Sa desisyong ito, talo ang taumbayan. Talo ang pananagutan. (In this decision, the people lost. Accountability lost.) Impeachment is about accountability. The process followed the Constitution: the complaint was verified, endorsed by more than one-third of the House, at iisa lang ang kasong kinakaharap ni Vice President Sara Duterte (only one case confronts Vice President Sara Duterte). There was no violation of due process—only a demand to present the truth to the Filipino people.
Kasama ang taumbayan, hindi tayo titigil manawagang panagutin ang dapat managot (Together with the people, we will not waver in our call for those accountable to be held so.) We will continue to work with civil society and reform-minded leaders to defend our democracy and ensure that truth and justice prevail.
Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima:
The Supreme Court’s decision today declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional is not only unprecedented; it is procedurally questionable.
Ito po ay isang hatol na ipinasa nang hindi man lang pinagsalita ang kabilang panig. (This was a decision rendered without hearing the other side.) The House of Representatives, the principal respondent in the case, was not given the opportunity to file a formal Comment as required by Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. No such order was issued by the Court.
Instead of directing the House to file a comment, the Court issued a written interrogatory—a rare, if not irregular, move. Somehow, the Supreme Court treated the House’s compliance with this interrogatory as if it were a formal responsive pleading. But let’s be clear: it was not.
Paano naglabas ng pinal na desisyon kung wala pang pormal na tugon ang respondent? (How was a final decision released without a formal reply from the respondent?)… Isang desisyong walang patas na proseso ay isang desisyong nakabitin sa ere. (A decision without due process is a decision left in the air.)
The decision is basically an ex-parte decision, a very prohibited action among judges when the rules require the parties to be given the opportunity to be heard first.
I respect the Supreme Court. But in a case of this magnitude—transcendental constitutional importance—we must demand clarity, not shortcuts. The public deserves an explanation….
To those discouraged: I understand your dismay. But let me assure you: this is not vindication. This is not exoneration.
August 21 Movement (Atom):
Today, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that hands victory to power, not justice.
By nullifying the impeachment complaint on July 25, 2025, citing a “one-year bar” constitutional safeguard, the Court has not only halted accountability. It has effectively shielded a public official from scrutiny. A lifetime political ban is now off the table, and her path to the 2028 presidency gleams brighter. This decision is not just a legal dismissal. It is a solemn breach of trust with the people.
Impeachment is the constitutional path for removing high officials accused of betraying public trust or committing serious crimes. The Constitution vested exclusive power in the Senate, not the judiciary, to try these cases. By obstructing that process, the Supreme Court has overstepped. It has substituted procedural form for democratic substance.
Justice delayed by the SC becomes justice denied by design.
To the SC Justices: You disappointed us. History will hold you accountable for choosing technicality over justice. This is a critical moment. If the Court has closed the door to impeachment, it has only heightened our resolve.
