SC: House impeachment complaint vs VP Duterte barred by 1-year rule, due process or fairness applies during all stages of impeachment process

“Our fundamental law is clear: the end does not justify the means.”

“There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time.  This is what the Rule of Just Law means.  This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.” (Leonen, SAJ. Duterte v. House of Representatives)

In a 13-0-2 Decision, with the Justices present voting unanimously, and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa inhibiting and Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh on leave,* the Supreme Court En Banc on July 25, 2025, declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.

However, the Court said it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her. But any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.

The case stemmed from four impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte. The first three were filed before the House of Representatives (HOR) by private individuals and different groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024.

A fourth complaint was lodged by a resolution approved by more than one-third of the HOR members of the 19th Congress on February 5, 2025, which was transmitted as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on the same day.

This was followed by two petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenging its constitutionality.

The Decision, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, ruled that all legal issues involving 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.”

“The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure but with political characteristics. It 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,” it said.

Although the Court does not determine whether an impeachable officer may be removed or disqualified from political office, it emphasized that “it has the duty to construe the process mandated in the Constitution.”

In declaring that the Articles of Impeachment were barred by the one-year rule, the Decision differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth complaint. The first three, it said, were filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with an endorsement by any HOR member. The fourth one was through Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the HOR members.

The Court took note that the HOR in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered “terminated or dismissed” upon the adjournment of the HOR.

“[T]he three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026,” it held.

Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, “[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” According to the Decision, the one-year bar is reckoned “from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable.” 

A key issue in the petitions is whether the HOR complied with the ten-session-day requirement under the Constitution for including a verified impeachment complaint in the Order of Business of the HOR. The Court ruled that the HOR was able to comply with the requirement by “putting the three endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives” since a session day is not equivalent to a calendar day. “It is a period that starts from a call to order until the session is adjourned, regardless of the passage of time.”

However, the Court reminded the HOR that Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution “clearly requires that a verified impeachment complaint be immediately put in the Order of Business within ten session days from its endorsement.” The Constitution does not grant either the Secretary General or the Speaker of the House “any discretion to determine when this period commences.”  Consequently, the House of Representatives is not granted any discretion “except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days.” However, the House may opt to “consolidate all impeachment complaints properly commenced and endorsed” within these periods.

The Court also determined that due process applies to the impeachment process. It laid down the following due process requirements in impeachment proceedings.

1. The Articles of Impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared with House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
2. The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.
3. The Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only those who are being considered to endorse.
4. The respondent in the impeachment complaint should have been given a chance to be heard on the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to its transmittal to the Senate, despite the number of endorsements from House members.
5. The House of Representatives must be given a reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint. The Court, however, has the power to review whether this period is sufficient, but petitioner—who invokes the Court’s power to review—should prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.
6. The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article XI, Section 2 or a betrayal of public trust given by the majority of the electorate.

For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy;

7. To ensure that respondent in the impeachment complaint is heard under the requirement of due process in the procedure under Article XI, Section 3(4), the House of Representatives is required to:

(a) Provide a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and its accompanying evidence to the respondent to give him/her an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period to be determined by the House rules. The Constitution only requires an opportunity to be heard. It is up the respondent to waive this fundamental right and opt to present his/her evidence at the Senate trial; and

(b) Make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the House of Representatives. It is the House—not one-third of the House—that has the sole prerogative to initiate impeachment complaints. Thus, there must be some modicum of deliberation so that each member representing their constituents can be heard and thus convince others of their position. The transmittal however will only take place upon the qualified vote of one-third of the House.

We quote from the final note of the unanimous Decision:

“It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law.

We cannot concede the sobriety of fairness inherent in due process of law to the passions of a political moment. Our fundamental law is clear: The end does not justify the means. 

We understand our history. We have learned that in the past, momentary desires to do what is convenient and concede means to ends have inadvertently created precedents that weaken the succor of law for those who dissent, or those at our society’s margins, or those who may have fallen out of grace from the powers that be. We have learned that the clash of political interests in the past, often disguised by noble intentions, has obscured the need to address the real problems of corruption, inequality, poverty, and disempowerment faced by our people.

We will not allow that to happen again. We will not hesitate to declare what is legal, just, and right for our people.

There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time.  This is what the Rule of Just Law means.  This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling is immediately executory. It shall be deemed served on the petitioners and released upon publication in the Supreme Court website and receipt of the parties of their digital copy in accordance with A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court.

We urge everyone to read the full text of the Decision and the concurring opinions.

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.