2 months ago
28
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — When the Supreme Court ruled in finality that Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment was unconstitutional, it also laid down “new” standards specifying what a valid impeachment looks like.
In its July 25, 2025 decision, the high court cited several grounds for voiding the impeachment, including the House’s “inaction” or effective dismissal of pending complaints and what it viewed as a lack of due process.
But in resolving the House’s motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court went further. It laid down more detailed instructions and rules on impeachment procedure, some of which differed from its earlier ruling.
So, what’s likely to change for future impeachments?
What triggers the one-year bar
For the longest time, it has been clear that the one-year bar begins once an impeachment process is initiated, preventing another complaint against the same official within the same year.
What initiates an impeachment proceeding, however, has long been debated. Is it the filing of a complaint, the referral to the justice committee, or both?
The Supreme Court settles this issue in its resolution, saying that under the first mode, initiation occurs when a complaint is properly filed and referred to the House justice committee.
The first mode refers to the filing of an impeachment complaint by a Filipino citizen and endorsement of a House member, filed by at least one House member.
It also agreed that a complaint filed and endorsed by at least one-third of House members constitutes an initiated impeachment, referred to as the second mode.
New conditions. The Supreme Court two additional situations that set off the one-year bar.
Complaints not included in the Order of Business or not referred to the justice committee within the required period are considered an “initiation.”
Even properly filed and referred complaints would trigger the one-year bar if the House takes no action before the incumbent Congress adjourns indefinitely.
This spells out the technical basis of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that “the one-year bar should be reckoned from the initiation of the impeachment complaint if unacted upon or when it is dismissed if it has been partially acted upon.” (p. 77)
What 'session days' mean
Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier and Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting argued that "session days," as mentioned in the Constitution, should be interpreted as calendar days when the House is in session or is supposed to meet for plenary.
This means that the House’s days in session, typically Monday to Wednesday, add up to three per week.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that this interpretation differs from its July 2025 ruling, where it found that the House had complied with the 10-session day requirement in including the first three complaints.
While not central to the earlier decision, the definition became crucial in the resolution that upheld Duterte’s impeachment as unconstitutional.
MR resolution: “We thus rule that the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment was not rendered invalid merely because it was based on the fourth complaint, which was endorsed by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives. Rather, the transmittal was invalid because it was already barred by Article XI; Section 3(5) of the Constitution.” (p. 27)
“Since the first impeachment complaint failed to follow the constitutional periods, any succeeding complaints are barred by Article XI, Section 3(5).” (p. 30)
Article XI, Section 3(5) refers to the one-year bar rule.
The high court originally said the fourth complaint violated the Constitution’s one-year bar rule because the first three complaints had already been effectively dismissed before the fourth was filed and endorsed.
It argued that the House’s archival of complaints, combined with its inaction and failure to deliberate before Congress adjourned sine die, effectively terminated the first three complaints.
July 2025 ruling: “In this case, the three impeachment complaints were properly endorsed within the 10-session-day constitutional requirement. However, the three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026.” (p. 78)
However, as the House pointed out in its appeal, the plenary vote to transmit the fourth complaint as articles of impeachment to the Senate came before the first three complaints were formally archived.
Instead of resolving the case based on this sequence of events, the Supreme Court declared the fourth complaint unconstitutional by using a specific definition to “session days” under the Constitution — an interpretation that departed from its earlier ruling.
The court, applying this definition, counted 19 session days for the first complaint before it was archived on Feb. 5, 2025, 17 days for the second, and 11 days for the third.
It, however, also maintained in both decisions that the House secretary general or the House speaker has no discretion over when impeachment complaints are referred to the Office of the Speaker, listed in the Order of Business, and acted upon by other members.
Dealing with multiple complaints
The Supreme Court set the record straight that the filing of multiple impeachment complaints against the same official is allowed.
It clarified that while the House may act on complaints as it sees fit, including dismissal or consolidation, it must still respect procedural requirements as stated in the Constitution and House rules.
The House, according to the decision, also does not need to prioritize complaints based on which was filed first.
MR resolution: “We clarify that the Constitution accords no priority to either the first or the second mode of initiating an impeachment complaint. The House has the prerogative to file impeachment complaints, to dismiss impeachment complaints for being sham complaints or due to insufficiency in form or substance, to choose which among multiple complaints to prioritize, or to consolidate multiple complaints.” (p. 27)
In other words, acting on the fourth impeachment complaint would have been considered constitutional if the House did not violate any rules concerning the first three.
MR resolution: “Consequently, preference may be accorded to a complaint filed under the second mode only insofar as doing so does not result in the violation of the timelines or procedural requirements governing complaints filed under the first mode.” (p. 28)
Originally, the Supreme Court ruled that the transmittal of the fourth impeachment complaint did not stop the first three complaints from needing to be referred to the justice committee.
How due process looks like for 'fast-track' mode
The perceived lack of due process was also one of the reasons the Supreme Court declared Duterte’s impeachment “null and void.”
Since the fourth impeachment complaint was filed through the second mode, which typically goes straight to the Senate, the Supreme Court initially said the House should:
- Give the respondent a copy of the articles of impeachment and supporting evidence (p. 88)
- Allow the respondent to respond to the allegations before articles’ transmittal (p. 88)
- Share the articles, evidence, and the respondent’s comment with all House members (p. 88)
- Make the draft articles of impeachment or resolution, including supporting evidence, available to all House members (p. 93)
- Ensure evidence is sufficient to prove charges that were committed during the respondent’s time in office. (p. 93)
The court simply reaffirmed the need for due process but removed the first three requirements related to internal House procedures before transmittal under the second mode.
"“This means that all members of the House of Representatives should have been given copies of the complaint and its accompanying evidence," the court said.
The transmittal should proceed immediately, however, once one-third of the House members endorse the complaint.
The court said referring second-mode complaints to the justice committee is not mandatory, but may be done to verify endorsements, review evidence, or consolidate complaints.
The high court suggested that the House can ensure procedural requirements are met by deliberating on them during plenary before the majority floor leader sends the articles to the Senate.
If the House decides to refer it to the justice committee, the Supreme Court said this should only be done to ensure the complaint:
- Is verified and properly endorsed.
- Contains supporting evidence and is shared with all House members.
- Can be consolidated with other complaints if the committee considers it.
House to revisit impeachment rules
Despite criticizing the ruling as judicial overreach, lawmakers said revising House impeachment rules is necessary to prevent future cases from being delayed or struck down.
Minority lawmakers, including Rep. Leila de Lima and the Makabayan bloc, also warned that the decision sets a “dangerous precedent” for repeated judicial intervention and changing rules.
For now, the House will continue with impeachment hearings against President Bongbong Marcos while preparing for the expected refiling of complaints against the vice president once the one-year bar lapses.
Revising the rules is a separate matter altogether, but one lawmakers and complainants will have to keep in mind going forward. — with reports from Ian Laqui
