FACT CHECK: No SC order blocking 2026 impeachment proceedings vs Duterte

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

While Duterte earlier filed a petition asking the SC to block the impeachment proceedings against her, the High Court did not issue a temporary restraining order

Claim: The Supreme Court (SC) issued an order blocking the renewed impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. 

Rating: FALSE 

Why we fact-checked this: A Facebook post bearing the claim has already received 1,300 reactions, 379 comments, and 161 shares as of writing. It was posted on April 28 amid the House justice committee hearing on Duterte’s impeachment.

The post shows a composite photo of Duterte, House justice committee chair Gerville Luistro, House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Leila de Lima, and House justice committee members Terry Ridon and Joel Chua. A photo of the SC is also included in the middle, showing SC justices such as Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo. 

The text on the photo reads, “Lahat napahiya! Impeachment pinatigil na? Korte nagdisisyon na! Naglabas ng ultimatom sa Kamara?”

(Everyone is embarrassed! Has the impeachment been stopped? The Court has already decided! Issued an ultimatum to the House?) 

Many social media users believed the claim, with comments thanking the Supreme Court for its supposed decision to block the impeachment. 

The facts: The SC did not issue any order blocking the new impeachment proceedings against Duterte. While the Vice President earlier filed a petition with the SC asking it to block the impeachment proceedings against her, she failed to secure a temporary restraining order from the High Court, allowing the House justice panel to continue its public hearing on her impeachment case.

Six days after the false claim was posted, the House justice panel approved its report containing the resolution setting forth the articles of impeachment against Duterte.

In January 2026, the High Court affirmed the unconstitutionality of the previous impeachment case against Duterte for violating the one-year bar rule. However, this ruling does not affect the current impeachment proceedings against the Vice President.

Rappler has recently debunked a similar post falsely claiming that the SC has dismissed the impeachment case against Duterte.

Latest updates: After a series of House justice committee hearings, the impeachment complaint against Duterte has been elevated to the House plenary, with the plenary vote expected on May 11. (READ: More than required number of lawmakers seen to vote for Sara Duterte impeachment)

Securing one-third support from House members would impeach Duterte for the second time. The impeachment articles will then be transmitted to the Senate, which will convene itself as an impeachment court for a trial.

The Vice President is accused of misusing public funds, amassing ill-gotten wealth, and making death threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Previous fact-checks: Rappler has previously fact-checked similar claims about Duterte’s impeachment: 

• FACT CHECK: Contrary to claim, Sotto says Senate is ‘ready’ to act on VP Sara impeachment 
• FACT CHECK: Supreme Court did not dismiss Sara Duterte impeachment after House hearings 
• FACT CHECK: 2025 news report used to claim VP Sara is now impeached 
• FACT CHECK: De Lima not ‘caught’ giving Madriaga scripted statements vs VP Sara 
• FACT CHECK: SC did not disbar Batangas representative Gerville Luistro 
• FACT CHECK: Arroyo not the new House speaker, did not junk impeachment raps vs VP Sara 

– Angelee Kaye Abelinde/Rappler.com 

Angelee Kaye Abelinde is a student journalist based in Naga City, and an alumna of Rappler’s Aries Rufo Journalism Fellowship 2024. 

Keep us aware of suspicious Facebook pages, groups, accounts, websites, articles, or photos in your network by contacting us at factcheck@rappler.com. Let us battle disinformation one Fact Check at a time.