SC upholds ruling declaring impeachment complaint vs VP Sara unconstitutional
DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 29 January) — The Supreme Court En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration filed by members of the House of Representatives, which sought the reversal of its earlier ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
In a press release issued on Thursday, the Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld its July 25, 2025 decision that declared the fourth impeachment complaint unconstitutional for violating due process and the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
Article XI, Section 3(5) provides that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
Four impeachment complaints were filed against the Vice President.
The first three impeachment complaints were filed in accordance with the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint by private individuals and various groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024, while the fourth one was filed in accordance with the second mode on February 5, 2025, and transmitted to the Senate on the same day as the Articles of Impeachment.
The Court said, however, that the first three complaints were not placed in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.
The Court interpreted “session days,” as used in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2) or for purposes of the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint, to mean a “calendar day in which the Lower House holds a session,” rather than “legislative session days.”
It also enumerated instances when an impeachment complaint is deemed initiated, thereby triggering the one-year bar rule.
According to the Court, one of such instances is “when a properly verified and endorsed impeachment complaint is not placed in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives within 10 session days, or referred to the Committee on Justice after it has been put in the Order of Business within three session days as required by Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.”
The Court also distinguished the second mode of initiating an impeachment complaint from the first one.
It said that the second mode under Article XI, Section 3(4) requires “an endorsement by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives, which is sufficient to transmit the Articles of Impeachment.”
The Court, however, noted that it acknowledged the Lower House’s exercise of its own rule-making power and that Section 2 of the “House Rules, as it is currently worded, requires the referral to the Committee on Justice even when filed through the second mode.”
It added that “the House may—optionally upon its own prerogative—refer an impeachment complaint already endorsed by at least one-third of all its members” to the Committee on Justice to “ensure that the endorsement of the members of the House is verified” and “to confirm that the evidence supporting the grounds in the complaint exists, and that every member of the House has been given a copy of the complaint, as well as the evidence supporting it.”
The Court said that existing House Rules also require referral to the Committee on Justice to “respect the Committee’s prerogative to consolidate different formulations of the complaint, if any, so that only one complaint is endorsed to the plenary for transmittal to the Senate.”
In its July 25, 2025 decision, penned by SC Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Court declared the impeachment complaint unconstitutional on the ground of violation of due process, apart from the one-year bar rule.
It added that 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.”
According to the Court, “due process of law applies to the impeachment process.”
“Due process as it applies to the impeachment process is sui generis or a class of its own. Full-blown trial happens at the Senate,” it added.
Due process, according to the Court, requires, at least for the second mode, that the grounds invoked in the complaint or resolution are those contained in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution; the procedure is governed by the Rules on Impeachment promulgated by the House of Representatives prior to any filing of any impeachment complaint; and as already provided by the current House Rules on Impeachment, all endorsing members should have been given a copy of the complaint and all its supporting evidence. (Antonio L. Colina IV / MindaNews)
No comments:
Post a Comment