2 months ago
32
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 — The House of Representatives may have to consider revising its rules governing impeachment proceedings after the Supreme Court clarified several technicalities in its final ruling on Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment.
Reps. Joel Chua (Manila, 3rd District) and Jonathan Keith Flores (Bukidnon, 2nd District), who were both impeachment prosecutors in Duterte's canceled trial, said the high court's latest decision signals the clear need to amend House rules on impeachment.
"The new House Rules on Impeachment must be carefully worded," Flores said in a statement on Thursday, January 29.
Still, Flores added that the House may still find a way to uphold its authority over impeachment matters in revising the rules while still reflecting the requirements stated in the latest ruling.
As lawyers, Chua and Flores said Congress must comply with the Supreme Court, which they acknowledge as "the final arbiter on constitutional and legal matters," even if they disagree with it.
What does this mean for Duterte? Rep. Gerville Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District), chair of the House justice committee, said it simply means the impeachment complaint is dead, with no chance for the original filing to proceed to trial.
The Supreme Court denied the House's motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its ruling that Duterte's impeachment was unconstitutional due to the lack of due process and perceived multiple initiation of proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court also clarified its interpretation of impeachment rules under the 1987 Constitution, many of which were unclear or different in its initial ruling.
What the Supreme Court clarified
Session days. For one, the court no longer agreed that the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte met the requirement of being included in the House's Order of Business within 10 session days.
In the July 2025 ruling, the court's press briefer stated that the House had "complied with the requirement by putting the three endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business," reasoning that a session day is not the same as a calendar day. Under this definition, one session day does not have to mean the passage of 24 hours.
It can be recalled that these complaints were filed in December 2024 and later archived by the plenary after the fourth complaint filed by at least one-third of House members was acted upon in February 2025.
The final ruling, however, stated otherwise. It interpreted "session days" in the Constitution in its plain and ordinary sense, which the court agreed were simply calendar days when the chamber holds a session.
This means that, in impeachment cases, a session day is counted as a calendar day when Congress meets in plenary, not as a legislative session day. The ruling does not change how the term is used in other laws.
Due process. Meanwhile, to clarify due process, the Supreme Court said the second mode of initiating impeachment —through a complaint filed by at least one-third of House members — must meet the following requirements:
- The grounds cited must fall under Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution, such as culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, treason, bribery, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
- The procedure must comply with House rules governing impeachment proceedings prior to the filing of the complaint.
- All endorsing members must be furnished copies of the complaint and its supporting evidence.
Under this interpretation, a complaint filed through the second mode does not need to go to the justice committee if it meets the requirements. Otherwise, it may be referred to confirm proper endorsement and that supporting evidence exists.
Multiple complaints. According to the Supreme Court, this means that the fourth impeachment complaint was not rendered invalid because it skipped the justice committee or that it was prioritized over the first complaints, but because the first three complaints failed to meet the constitutional requirement to include them in the Order of Business within 10 session days.
In other words, the Constitution does not bar lawmakers from gathering support for another impeachment complaint. Any pending complaints, however, must still comply with the required time periods, and the House may simply choose to consolidate them.
Change in 'due process' requirements
For Rep. Terry Ridon (Bicol Saro Party-list), the decision provides Congress with a more "workable and constitutionally appropriate standard" in terms of ensuring due process in the different modes of initiating an impeachment.
Originally, the Supreme Court wanted the House to give the respondent a chance to answer the allegations and receive a copy of the articles of impeachment as part of its internal proceedings rather than the pre-trial.
"This MR ruling restores clarity to the House’s constitutional role in impeachment. It recognizes that impeachment is a political and constitutional process entrusted to the legislature, and that the House must be allowed to evaluate complaints based on the evidence available to Members, consistent with internal rules and the requirements set by the Constitution," Ridon said.
Impeach rap still looms for Duterte
While Congress respects the Supreme Court's ruling, it is also preparing for new impeachment complaints against the vice president.
The three-member Makabayan bloc, in particular, has already announced plans to refile and endorse an impeachment complaint against Duterte, as well as pursue other legal and constitutional remedies to hold her accountable.
"The Filipino people deserve answers. They deserve accountability. And they deserve a Vice President who respects the Constitution and serves the public interest, not personal or political agendas," they said.
Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list), a long-time advocate for Duterte's impeachment trial, reminded the public that the Supreme Court’s ruling "rests on a technicality" and does not absolve the vice president of the allegations against her.
More than a year on, Duterte has yet to respond to allegations of fund misuse, unexplained wealth, conspiracy to kill the president, bribery, sedition and links to drug war killings.
Luistro said that for any future complaints against the vice president, the House will follow the rules required by the Supreme Court.
With impeachment proceedings for President Bongbong Marcos in motion, lawmakers are bracing for hearings involving both the president and vice president in the months to come.
