1 month ago
15
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 justice committee opened hearings on the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday, March 2, but discussions on the complaints' sufficiency in form were stalled by concerns over the Supreme Court's ruling on the one-year bar rule.
Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores (Bukidnon, 2nd District), vice chairperson of the justice committee, moved to set aside the first impeachment complaint filed on February 2. The first complaint was filed by progressive groups from marginalized sectors and endorsed by the three-member Makabayan bloc.
"I move that we set aside the first complaint because it was filed prior to the lapse of the one-year bar rule," Flores said.
With objections raised, the committee divided the floor, with 22 members voting in favor of the motion while 10 opposed it.
This effectively gives the justice committee only two impeachment complaints left to tackle, considering the panel accepted the withdrawal of the second complaint.
Did the first complaint violate the one-year bar?
Flores introduced the motion after some lawmakers questioned the timeliness of the impeachment complaints, noting that the Supreme Court's July 2025 decision had ruled no impeachment proceedings could be initiated against Duterte until Feb. 6, 2026.
He clarified that the Supreme Court's final ruling, made on January 28, did not explicitly state any change to the lapse date of the one-year bar rule. Invoking rules of statutory construction, he said, "What is expressed puts an end to what is implied."
Meanwhile, some lawmakers supporting the motion said the House needs to proceed with caution to avoid issues that could trigger another judicial review.
However, the Supreme Court's final ruling introduced new scenarios that would set off the one-year bar rule, including the House's failure to include impeachment complaints in the Order of Business or to refer them to the appropriate committee within the 10-session-day period.
The ruling also redefined "session days," stating that, in the context of impeachment, session days should be counted as calendar days when the House is in session.
This effectively advanced the timeline for compliance with the 10-session-day rule, which was not an issue in the original ruling. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the complaints should have been included in the Order of Business by Jan. 14, 2025, and referred to the proper committee by Jan. 21, 2025.
For this reason, the petitioners of the first complaint — and the withdrawn second complaint — filed their cases before February 6.
Some lawmakers who objected also explained that impeachment proceedings against the same respondent are barred only once a proceeding has been initiated, which includes both filing and referral, not just the filing.
This means that even if the one-year bar rule still lapsed on February 6, complaints under the first mode of impeachment could still be filed, since they would only be deemed initiated once they are referred to the justice committee.
Philstar.com sought clarification from the Supreme Court regarding its final ruling and the one-year bar rule. While the high court confirmed receipt of the inquiry, it has yet to reply.
Complaints sufficient in form
After the justice committee ruled on Flores' motion, it moved on to assess the sufficiency in form of the third and fourth complaints, determining whether they were properly filed, signed, sworn under oath, and endorsed by a member of the House.
In less than 20 minutes, the committee declared the complaints as sufficient in form, with no objections. The committee found that the complaints were included in the Order of Business within the 10-session-day requirement and were referred to the justice committee within three session days.
The third complaint was filed on February 9 by a group of clergymen, evangelists, nuns and lawyers. It was endorsed by Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list).
Meanwhile, the fourth complaint was filed on February 18 by a single petitioner and endorsed by Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. (Manila, 6th District) and Deputy Speaker Francisco Paolo Ortega V (La Union, 1st District).
Both complaints, including the first two now set aside by the committee, were referred to the justice committee on February 23.
The complaints seek to remove Duterte from her post, mainly over the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, including the death threats she issued against President Bongbong Marcos and some of his closest allies.
The grounds for impeachment cited include betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, bribery, malversation, and other high crimes.
The justice committee will continue hearings on the complaints on March 3, this time assessing their sufficiency in substance — that is, whether the allegations are supported by a clear and detailed narration of facts.
