2 months ago
53
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
Year ender
MANILA, Philippines — While the Supreme Court reported a lower disposition rate in 2025, with only 19 percent compared to 22 percent in 2024, it nonetheless ruled on a number of controversial cases that shook the nation last year.
The resolved issues include the diversion of Philippine Health Insurance or PhilHealth funds, impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte and the postponement of the barangay and youth elections as well as the parliamentary poll in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao or BARMM.
The SC has the duty to settle controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable and determine if any branch or instrumentality of government has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction.
VP impeachment
In February 2025, just before the legislative session took a break, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Duterte over alleged misuse of confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, which the Vice President also headed then, and for allegedly threatening to kill President Marcos.
Over one-third of the House members endorsed an impeachment complaint, which served as the Articles of Impeachment that was transmitted to the Senate.
However, prior to this, three impeachment complaints, filed by different groups, were lodged against Duterte in December 2024. A conviction in an impeachment trial would have barred Duterte, who is seen as a strong contender for the 2028 presidency, from running for office for life.
In July 2025, the SC unanimously voted to declare the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional, saying the groups are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which provides that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
The high court ruled that the first three complaints were “archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed” on Feb. 5, 2025, meaning no new complaint can be initiated until after Feb. 6, 2025. The one-year ban is to be counted from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or otherwise rendered no longer viable, the ruling read.
It also reminded the House that impeachment complaints must be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days from endorsement, emphasizing that the Constitution does not grant discretion to the Speaker or Secretary General to delay this process.
The SC said the Constitution’s limits on impeachment are meant to prevent abuse for political ends and ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly, lawfully and with full respect for the rights of the accused.
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa inhibited from the case as he is related to the counsel of one of the parties. Associate Justice Filomena Singh was on leave.
In August, the House asked the SC to reconsider its decision, an appeal that is still pending.
The House argued that the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte, filed by at least one-third of the House, did not violate the one-year ban since it first acted on it and transmitted it to the Senate, prompting the termination or archival of the first three complaints.
It also said that the House should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official and for the Senate to try the case.
PhilHealth funds
Another major ruling was the SC’s decision to order the government to return to PhilHealth the P60-billion excess funds it transferred to the Bureau of the Treasury.
The amount forms part of the P89.9 billion of unused PhilHealth funds that were initially ordered diverted to the national treasury to augment unprogrammed appropriations in the national budget.
The SC had issued a temporary restraining order to halt the transfer of the remaining P29.9 billion following several petitions. The SC held oral arguments on the petitions from February to April.
In its ruling, the SC declared void the Special Provision 1(d), Chapter XLIII of the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) as well as the Department of Finance Circular 003-2024, which allowed the overall transfer of excess reserve funds.
The high tribunal held that the provision in the GAA is a “rider,” as it is “not germane or related to the bill’s purpose,” saying that the Constitution requires all provisions of the GAA to be germane to its purpose “to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature and to fairly inform the people of the bills’ subject.”
The SC added that the same provision is void for impliedly repealing Section 11 of the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) and the Sin Tax laws.
Section 11 of the UHCA requires PhilHealth to maintain reserve funds up to a two-year ceiling of projected program expenses. Each year, PhilHealth must set aside part of its net income as reserve funds and any unused funds must be invested so that earnings are added back to these reserves.
If the reserve funds exceed the ceiling, the excess must be used to increase the benefits under the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) and to reduce member contributions.
Meanwhile, Sin Tax laws earmark specific excise taxes exclusively for the UHCA’s implementation.
“The Bureau of the Treasury must set aside these amounts for the UHCA’s implementation, and Congress must fully allocate them to PhilHealth through the GAA. Congress cannot reduce, suspend or withhold these earmarked funds,” the SC ruled.
BSKE polls
On election-related matters, the SC affirmed the legality of Republic Act 12232, the law postponing the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections from December 2025 to November 2026, essentially extending the term of the incumbent BSK officials and gave them a term of four years, instead of three.
In upholding the law, the high tribunal ruled that under Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to set the term duration of barangay officials as they are not bound by the general three-year term limit that applies to other elective officials.
“The legislative power is not merely permissive, but makes Congress the sole body empowered to define the term of office of barangay officials,” the SC ruled.
The high court also did not agree that the law violated the public’s right to vote as “it neither abolishes nor indefinitely suspends the BSK officials, but simply changed the interval from three to four years.”
The SC also found that the law does not “postpone” the elections and that the rescheduling is “merely incidental.”
It said RA 12232 is a “term-setting law” and that it established a four-year term as well as prohibited consecutive terms.
BARMM polls
Another election-related ruling involved the first parliamentary elections in the BARMM, which was originally scheduled on Oct. 13, 2025.
The elections had been deferred after the high tribunal ruled that the redistricting laws – Bangsamoro Autonomy Act 77 and its predecessor BAA 58 – are unconstitutional.
BAA 77, or the Bangsamoro Parliamentary Redistricting Act, redistricts seven parliamentary seats originally assigned to Sulu. Its predecessor, BAA 58, meanwhile created the parliamentary districts in the region.
The SC said BAA 77 is unconstitutional for violating Section 5 of the Voter’s Registration Act, which bars any alteration of precincts once the election period has started.
The law is also void for violating the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s requirement that each district should comprise adjacent and adjoining areas as far as practicable.
It said some local government units in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao del Norte and Cotabato City were assigned to different districts that were neither contiguous or adjacent.
The nullification of BAA 77 also does not revive the earlier law, BAA 58 or the Bangsamoro Parliamentary Districts Acts, as it is based on an outdated framework following the removal of Sulu from BARMM.
The SC said a new valid redistricting law must be passed consistent with the Bangsamoro Organic Law, national laws and the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the SC also ruled that a candidate’s low vote count in a previous election is not enough to automatically declare them as nuisance candidates.
Further, the SC found that if the Comelec is allowed to declare a candidate as a nuisance due to low votes, the poll body will be “virtually exercising that which is exclusively reserved to the voters.”
Pending petitions
Several controversial matters, meanwhile, have been lodged and are still pending before the SC, including the petitions challenging the legality of the arrest and turnover of former president Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face charges of crimes against humanity over his administration’s bloody drug war.
His co-accused, Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, has asked the SC to compel Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla to submit a copy of the alleged ICC warrant issued against him.
Dela Rosa also asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the government from implementing the warrant – a manifestation that remains pending with the Court.
Also pending is the petition that seeks to declare unconstitutional the P6.326-trillion national budget for 2025.
Petitioners Vic Rodriguez and others argued that the GAA failed to provide mandatory funding for PhilHealth, unlawfully hiked appropriations beyond the President’s proposed budget and prioritized infrastructure spending over education.
They also questioned the blank items in the bicameral conference committee report.
The petition to declare the Maharlika Investment Fund as unconstitutional and void also remains pending.
