When will Sara’s impeachment process end?
Voting unanimously in Sara Z. Duterte v. House of Representatives (July 25, 2025, per Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, en banc, 13-0 with Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa inhibiting and Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh on leave), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the articles of impeachment filed by the House against the Vice President, for violating the one-year rule imposed by the Constitution. Accordingly, the Senate under then Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero archived the Articles.
BY THE SAME VOTE, the Court—in a resolution dated Jan. 29, 2026—clarified that, in sum, after one year, impeachment complaints may be initiated anew in accordance with the Constitution and the rules of the House. Significantly, the Court did not rule on the merits of the articles of impeachment.
Consequently, four impeachment complaints were filed in the House. One was later withdrawn; another was dismissed, while the two others—“filed by Fr. Joel Saballa, et al.” and by “Atty. Nathaniel G. Cabrera”—were declared sufficient in form and substance by the House committee on justice. Thereafter, the justice committee issued a “Notice” directing the VP to file her “Verified Answer” to the two complaints within a nonextendible period of 10 calendar days or until yesterday, March 15, 2026.
At her option, the VP may or may not comply with the notice. However, “her failure to file her Verified Answer” within the said period “shall be deemed a waiver of [her] right” to submit her answer and she “shall be considered to have interposed a general denial to the allegations contained in the impeachment complaints.”
Upon receipt of the answer, if any, the complainants were given three calendar days to file a reply, with a copy furnished to the VP. Upon receiving the reply, the VP may then file a rejoinder within three calendar days. During these exchanges, both parties may submit their supporting evidence, affidavits, and other pleadings.
After hearing and evaluating the evidence, the Justice Committee will determine—by a vote of the majority of all its 40 regular members plus about 15 ex-officio—whether probable cause exists to support the impeachment complaints. If the majority vote is not obtained, the complaints would be deemed dismissed.
On the other hand, if the majority vote is obtained, the committee would submit a favorable report to the House together with the appropriate articles of impeachment. If the report and the Articles obtain the vote of at least one-third of the members of the House or 105 members, the Articles would be transmitted to the Senate for trial “forthwith.” Note that the articles of impeachment thrown out by the Court on July 25, 2025 were signed by 215 representatives.
THESE PROCEEDINGS MAY MAKE SENSE TO LAWYERS, but to lay people, the question is, how long will the process take before the supposed Articles will be transmitted to the Senate for trial “forthwith.” The answer will depend partly on whether the justice committee could continue its proceedings during the congressional recess from March 21 to May 3, 2026.
Rep. Gerville Luistro, chair of the House justice committee, opined that because of the urgency expected by the people in expediting the proceedings, the committee can and should continue its hearings during the recess. With due respect, I believe the committee should refrain from so proceeding unless the House amends its rules or gives express authority allowing the committee to continue.
Should the committee proceed without such authority, it would be vulnerable to a petition in the Supreme Court to declare its proceedings unconstitutional. In this instance, if a temporary restraining order is issued by the Court stopping the committee’s proceedings or worse, judging them unconstitutional, then the proceedings would be delayed indefinitely.
However, as a caveat, the President may call a special session of Congress during the contemplated recess. In this case, the committee, in my humble opinion, could also proceed with its hearings.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL DEADLINE limiting the length of the proceedings in the upper house, except that “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” The trial of former President Joseph Estrada lasted roughly one month, because the prosecutors walked out after the Senate voted 12-11 to stop the opening of the “second envelope” that was supposed to contain damning evidence against the then president. Instead, he was ousted by the Second People Power revolution. In contrast, the full trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona spanned about five months.
Given the foregoing, and assuming the complaints progress through the House and the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate, the full trial could extend well into 2027, depending on scheduling, evidence presentation, legal challenges, and political dynamics.
As our people await accountability and clarity, we can take solace in Martin Luther King Jr.’s enduring insight: the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. True justice, in this context, demands thoroughness, not haste—ensuring that any outcome rests on truth rather than on expediency.
—————-
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
