Palace: SC ruling on Sara Duterte impeachment doesn't absolve accountability

Malacañang said Friday it respects Supreme Court (SC) decision affirming that the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional, while stressing that it does not settle issues about possible accountability.

In a Palace briefing, Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro underscored that the SC decision was not based on the merits of the impeachment complaints.

"Igagalang po ng Pangulo, ng administrasyon kung anuman po ang naging desisyon ng Supreme Court," Castro said.

(The President and the administration respect whatever decision of the Supreme Court.)

"Makikita naman po at mababasa natin kung ano naging desisyon ng Supreme Court. Hindi po ito patungkol sa paglilinis sa isang issue ng nasabing subject matter sa nasabing desisyon. So, kung may pananagutan, sabi nga po ng Pangulo–kung dapat managot, dapat managot," she said.

(As we can read in the Supreme Court decision, its subject matter is not about absolving an issue. So, as the President said, if there's accountability, those persons should be made accountable.)

In a 50-page resolution promulgated January 28, the High Court upheld its July 2025 decision that deemed that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional based on two grounds: violation of the one-year bar rule, and violation of her right to due process.

Castro said the SC ruling would not interfere with the legal agenda of the administration. 

Up to Congress

She also said President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. would not interfere with the House of Representatives' plan to revise the Rules of Impeachment in compliance with the recent decision.

The President himself is facing impeachment complaints before the House of Representatives.

"Trabaho po iyan ng Kongreso, hindi po makikialam ang Pangulo," she said.

(That is the duty of Congress and the President will not interfere with that.)

It can be recalled the SC ruled that the impeachment case against the Vice President was unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule.

The House already archived the first three verified impeachment complaints filed when the majority of the House members voted to impeach the Vice President, based on the fourth verified impeachment complaint filed.

The Supreme Court said archiving was in effect a referral, thus violating the constitutional limit of only referring one impeachment complaint per year against an impeachable official.

In its appeal which was junked by the High Court, the House argued that archiving was not a referral and thus, not a violation of the one-year bar rules. — VDV, GMA Integrated News