Sara impeachment: What are implications of SC’s new ruling?

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

The historic impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte was a ball passed from the House of Representatives to the Senate as impeachment court, only to be passed back by the latter to the former by remanding the complaint.

All the while, the Supreme Court (SC) was there in the sidelines.

Historically, the High Court had intervened in impeachment proceedings “when the sparse limits provided by the Constitution were alleged to have been violated.” In this case, it entertained two petitions — from the Vice President herself and from her family’s lawyer allies.

But by July 25, 2025, the SC made it clear that it was no silent spectator. Acting as referree, it dropped a bombshell ruling that not only quashed doubts whether the trial will continue, but also shattered all hopes that a trial would happen at least for this year.

“The Articles of Impeachment are DECLARED BARRED BY ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION. Likewise, they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are deemed NULL and VOID AB INITIO… This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY,” the 97-page unanimous decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

“Our ruling does not absolve petitioner Duterte from any of the charges. Any ruling on the charges against her can only be accomplished through another impeachment process, followed by a trial and conviction by the Senate,” it added.

The SC gave two grounds — constitutional infirmities (violation of the one-year bar rule) and due process — why the trial had to meet its end.

Rule that ended it all

Four impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in total.

The first three were filed by civic groups and activists in December 2024, but they did not materialize. These complaints were supposed to take the “long way” impeachment mode (passing through House committees, etc.) under article XI, section 3(2).

Duterte was impeached through the fourth complaint, a resolution backed by more than two-thirds of the House. This one used the “faster way” or the other impeachment mode under article XI, section 3(4), which states that in cases where a resolution is backed by at least a third of the House, this will be considered articles of impeachment and the trial will be commenced by the Senate.

Duterte’s main point of contention in her SC petition was the lower chamber’s alleged violation of the one-year bar rule, a protection under article XI, section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution that prevents any impeachment proceedings against the same official for more than once in a year.

The Vice President argued with the SC that by not taking action on the first three complaints, the House “deliberately [froze] the entire initiation and impeachment process,” rendering the one-year bar rule of the Constitution “futile and meaningless.” Lawyering for the House, the Office of the Solicitor General said the delay in the referral of the first three complaints were not considered initiation, therefore the one-year bar rule had not been violated.

But the SC disagreed. The first three complaints were “effectively dismissed” when the 19th Congress had adjourned, according to the High Court, adding that the articles of impeachment filed under the “faster way” cannot be a substitute as the first three were filed via the “long way.”

“It is clear that the impeachment complaint commenced through Article XI, Section 3(2) is different from the impeachment complaint filed through Section 3(4). In light of the archiving, dismissal, or rendering of the first three complaints as functus officio, the Articles of Impeachment filed on February 5, 2025 is therefore barred because of the violation of the one-year bar under Section 3(5),” the ruling said.

To the House’s defense, it said that the fourth impeachment complaint was valid because the first three were not initiated. The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) said that under jurisprudence, initiation is done when there’s a filing of a complaint, and if the latter had been referred to the House’s justice committee.

And under Francisco v. House of Representatives, the SC said that the one-year bar was triggered only upon proper initiation of complaints under section 3(2). But in the latest ruling, the SC said the one-year bar rule should be reckoned “from the initiation of the impeachment complaint if unacted upon or when it is dismissed if it has been partially acted upon.”

“By treating unacted complaints as if they were fully initiated and dismissed, the Court ignores the constitutional role of referral to the proper committee in ensuring that they undergo scrutiny before they trigger impeachment proceedings,” the NUPL said.

This ruling also stretched to the “longer way” of impeachment.

“In effect, if a complaint has already been filed by a citizen and supported by a congressman, one-third of the House would now be barred from directly initiating a more meritorious complaint. Given that the Court even imposes a ‘clear and convincing’ evidence standard for the House, the decision creates a perverse incentive for the filing of nuisance complaints to protect impeachable officers and trigger one-year bars,” University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law professor and constitutional law expert Paolo Tamase told Rappler.

Was highlighting due process necessary?

Apart from violating the one-year bar rule, the SC said the articles of impeachment were also null and void due to violation of due process.  

“[Impeachment] may be sui generis but it is not a purely political proceeding. This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases applies to the entire impeachment process,” the decision said, adding that the “opportunity to be heard” must be present at every single stage of the impeachment process. 

Under the “longer way” or article XI, section 3(2), a committee conducts a hearing as part of the process. But this doesn’t mean that the respondent will not be given a chance to respond to allegations if the “faster way” under section 3(4) was used for the impeachment. 

“The Vice President’s opportunity to respond is preserved before the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, as it always has been in our constitutional practice,” the NUPL explained. 

In the new decision, the SC also laid down specific guidelines on how due process will be ensured in impeachment proceedings. This includes the requirement that the articles of impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared to House members, and the respondent will be given the chance to respond to the allegations, among other things. 

“It was absolutely not necessary to lay down rules to ensure due process,” Tamase explained. 

“The Court could have invalidated the complaint and simply left the House to recalibrate its processes on its own, especially because the House is a co-equal branch. But it seems to now dictate how the House should proceed in cases of impeachment — something which even Francisco and Gutierrez did not do,” he added.

What happened to separation of powers?

Under the Constitution, the power to remove an impeachable official like the Vice President lies with the House, while the Senate, as the impeachment court, has the duty to try and decide impeachment cases.

The High Court, meanwhile, can review legal questions arising from the impeachment procedure, such as the one-year bar rule.

This is why when the SC directed specific questions to the House and Senate in relation to the impeachment, some experts noted that this was supposedly “unusual” because the SC should not have asked Congress about its own processes as they are co-equal branches.

In the ruling, the High Court said that all legal issues involving the impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review “considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process.”

“Judicial review must remain vigilant, but restrained; interpretive authority must not evolve into administrative oversight over a co-equal branch. The delicate balance of powers must be carefully maintained. Any departure from this equilibrium, however well-intentioned, risks disrupting the constitutional order,” the NUPL said.

For Tamase, the new SC ruling — that sets stricter rules on impeachment — benefits every impeachable official. Like the president and the vice president, SC members are impeachable officials too. The constitutional law expert added that through the ruling, the SC has also inserted itself into every impeachment proceeding. 

“You have to account that in the American design of impeachment, which we follow on this aspect, the courts were cut out of the impeachment process because that would be the only political check on this unelected body,” Tamase told Rappler. 

“But by laying detailed step-by-step instructions to the House, the Court has inserted itself into every impeachment. If I were a public official, I could use those steps to contest an impeachment complaint against me at every turn,” he explained.

Some lawmakers also issued strongly worded statements following the SC’s new ruling. But unlike the House, the upper chamber said it is duty-bound to respect the High Court decision. 

As an immediate recourse, the House may file a motion for reconsideration to ask the High Court to reconsider its decision. But pending the appeal, it is certain that no impeachment trial will commence against the Vice President — at least for this year. – Rappler.com