SC Upholds Constitutionality, Dismisses Impeachment Attempt Against VP Duterte

SC Upholds Constitutionality, Dismisses Impeachment Attempt Against VP Duterte

By Bing Jabadan – TheNATIONWEEK.com | January 30, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court (SC) has unanimously denied the House of Representatives’ motion for reconsideration, effectively concluding the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The ruling, delivered en banc, affirms the high court’s July 25, 2025 decision, declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional.

The court’s decision, detailed in a press release and full resolution available on the SC website, hinges on the interpretation of Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) of the Constitution, which prohibits successive impeachment attempts within a year.

The SC reiterated that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025, violated this provision.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa recused himself from the vote, while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh did not vote as she was on leave.

In its ruling, the SC clarified several key points:

‘Session Days’ Definition

The SC clarified that “session days” in the context of initiating impeachment complaints (Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2)) refers to calendar days when the House of Representatives holds a session, not legislative session days. This interpretation affects the timeline for placing impeachment complaints on the House’s Order of Business.

Impeachment Initiation

Referencing “Gutierrez v. House of Representatives,” the SC elaborated on when an impeachment complaint is considered “initiated” for the purpose of the one-year bar. This includes scenarios wherein a complaint is properly verified and endorsed but is either not placed on the Order of Business within 10 session days, not referred to the Committee on Justice within three days of being placed on the Order of Business, or where no Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate before the House adjourns sine die. The SC emphasized that initiation must occur during the term of Congress.

House Rules on Impeachment

While affirming the House’s authority to create its own rules on impeachment, the SC clarified that the current wording of Section 2 of the House Rules requires referral to the Committee on Justice even for complaints filed through the second mode of impeachment (Article XI, Section 3, subsection (4)). This second mode allows for direct transmittal of Articles of Impeachment to the Senate with the endorsement of at least one-third of House members. The high court outlined that the House “may” refer such complaints to the Committee on Justice for verification of endorsements, confirmation of evidence, and consolidation of different complaint formulations.

Two Impeachment Modes

The SC highlighted the fundamental difference between the two modes of initiating impeachment proceedings. The first mode (subsections (2) and (3)) involves a structured, committee-driven approach, emphasizing institutional screening and review. The second mode (subsection (4)) offers a more direct mechanism, allowing for streamlined initiation when significant consensus exists within the House.

Due Process in Impeachment

The Court affirmed that due process applies to impeachment proceedings, although it is “sui generis” (a class of its own). While a full trial occurs in the Senate, the House process, particularly for the second mode, requires adherence to specific rules, including invoking grounds outlined in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution, following the House Rules on Impeachment, and providing all endorsing members with copies of the complaint and supporting evidence.

Operative Fact Doctrine

The SC ruled that the operative fact doctrine, which can validate actions taken under a law later deemed unconstitutional, cannot be invoked by a party directly responsible for the unconstitutional act. The resolution is immediately executory, and no further pleadings will be allowed.

Separate concurring opinions were issued by Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Henri Jean Paul Inting, and Ricardo Rosario. Separate opinions were also issued by Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier and Raul Villanueva, offering further perspectives on the complex legal issues involved.

The decision marks a significant moment in Philippine political history, clarifying the constitutional framework surrounding impeachment proceedings and setting a precedent for future cases. The full text of the decision and related opinions are available on the SC website.