Supreme Court affirms impeachment complaint vs. VP Sara Duterte 'unconstitutional'

The Philippine Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed that the fourth impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte for misuse of public funds is unconstitutional.

In a post on social media, the SC Public Information Office affirmed the Court's ruling last year and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

Philippine lawmakers were seeking to reverse the decision handed down by the Supreme Court on July 25, 2025 stating that the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte, transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025, was not allowed by law.

The Supreme Court cited Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) of the Constitution which states that no impeachment complaint may be filed against the same government official more than once within the same year.

The ruling was decided by the Supreme Court en banc but Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa did not participate and Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.

According to the Congress website, the fourth impeachment complaint was signed by 215 lawmakers who accused the Vice President of "graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes."

"The charges cite, among others, her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President during her concurrent tenure as Education Secretary, her defiance of congressional oversight, and her failure to uphold civilian supremacy over the police and military," Congress said in a press statement.

A PROBLEM WITH LEGAL PROCEDURE

Atty. Princess Abante, spokesperson of the House of Representatives, in the same statement, insisted that the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte had complied with the legal procedure prescribed in the Philippine Constitution.

However, in a briefer posted on its website, the Supreme Court countered this claim, saying that the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte had failed to meet certain requirements such as placing the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.

"Session days as used in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2) or for purposes of the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint does not mean legislative session days," the Court wrote.

"A session day for purposes of Article XI in the Constitution was given its plain and ordinary sense, which the Court interprets to mean a calendar day in which the House of Representatives holds a session," the Court added.

THE ONE-YEAR BAR ON FILING IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS

The press briefer issued by the Supreme Court on January 29 explained the one-year bar on filing an impeachment complaint against government officials.

The Court explained that an impeachment complaint is deemed "initiated" when:

(a) an endorsed impeachment complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice;

(b) an 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, subsection (2) of the Constitution;" or

(c) no Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate "before the House of Representatives adjourns sine die. This means that the initiation of an impeachment complaint must occur during the term of Congress."

HOUSE RULES ON IMPEACHMENT

Meanwhile, the Court acknowledged that the House of Representatives has the right to promulgate its own "Rules on Impeachment."

However, the Supreme Court noted that the House of Representatives is still required by law to refer the impeachment complaint to the Committee on Justice.

The Court is referring to the two ways of filing an impeachment complaint under the Philippine Constitution. These are sometimes referred to as the "slow" or "long way" and the "fast way."

(1) Slow way based on Article XI, section 3(2) of the Philippine Constitution: the complaint must pass through the different House committees, and

(2) Fast way based on Article XI, section 3(4) of the Constitution: a resolution that is backed by at least a third of the House of Representatives will be considered as "Articles of impeachment" and a trial will begin in the Senate.

The Supreme Court that a person's right to due process must be respected whichever mode is followed in filing an impeachment complaint.

In the press briefer, the court said, “The phrase ‘right to life, liberty, or property’ should not be read with undue literalism.  It must be accorded reasonable flexibility to achieve its intent of protecting inherent and inalienable rights that could not have been exhaustively articulated at the time of its framing."

"The due process clause embodies the fundamental constitutional commitment to reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. It envisions that we cannot have a true democratic and republican/representative state that is arbitrary and unfair," it added.

The Supreme Court noted that even in the "fast way" of filing an impeachment complaint, "all endorsing members should have been given a copy of the complaint and all its supporting evidence."

The Court said evidence must come from those "directly responsible in the commission of an unconstitutional act" and the Court noted all the motions for intervention and pleadings in Duterte's case were "filed by individuals who were not parties to the case."          

-Veronica Pulumbarit/Paraluman News