The Supreme Court (SC) has declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional, court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting announced Friday. 

Ting said the SC ruled unanimously, deeming that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa inhibited while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh is on leave. The decision was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

"The SC has ruled that the House impeachment complaint versus VP Sara Duterte is barred by the one-year rule and that due process or fairness applies in all stages of the impeachment process," Ting said in a press briefing.

Due to this, Ting said the Senate cannot 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," she said.

This is because High Court ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable, according to Ting. The first three impeachment complaints, Ting said, were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint.

The high court's ruling is in relation to the consolidated petition filed by Duterte, lawyer Israelito Torreon, and others seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her as null and void.

To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds.

It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment.

"Our fundamental law is clear. The end does not justify the means," Ting said, quoting the decision.

"There is a right way to do the right things 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," she added.

According to Ting, the decision is immediately executory. However, she said the House of Representatives may still file a motion for reconsideration. 

Malacañang called on the public to respect the high court's ruling.

"We have yet to review the full text of the Supreme Court's decision.  We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions," Undersecretary Claire Castro said.

"The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates," she added.

For its part, the Senate impeachment court said it is "duty-bound" to respect the finality of rulings issued by the Supreme Court. 

Lawyer Regie Tongol, spokesperson of the Senate impeachment court, said the SC decision affirms impeachment court's stance that "constitutional issues surrounding the Articles required clarity before trial proceedings could commence."

"The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court," Tongol said. 

Defense panel

Duterte's defense team welcomed the decision, saying it fortified the Constitutional limits “against abuse of the impeachment process.”

“The decision of the Honorable Court affirms what we had maintained from the outset—that the 4th impeachment complaint is constitutionally infirm,” Duterte’s defense team said in a statement sent by spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa to reporters. 

“This unanimous Decision has once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process,” it added.

The defense team, however, maintained that it remained prepared to address the allegations against Duterte “at the proper time and before the appropriate forum.”

Four complaints

Ting said the SC differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth complaint. 

Ting said the first three were filed under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with the endorsement of a House member.

However, it said the fourth one was filed through  Article XI Section 3 paragraph 4 of the Constitution, through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the House members.

To recall, a total of 215 congressmen endorsed the fourth complaint on February 5, impeaching the Vice President. Another 25 lawmakers who were unable to attend the plenary vote later added their signatures to the complaint.

One-third of the 306 House members at the time, or 102 lawmakers, was needed to transmit the complaint to the Senate.

"The Court took note that the House of the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered terminated or dismissed upon adjournment of the House," Ting said.

She said Article XI Section 3 paragraph 2 also required that a verified impeachment complaint be put in the order of business within 10-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," she said.

"Consequently, the House of Representatives is not granted any discretion except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days," she added.

Consolidating complaints

However, the SC said the House may choose to consolidate impeachment complaints that are properly commenced and endorsed within the aforementioned periods.

According to Ting, the SC also laid down the following due process requirements in impeachment proceedings:

• The Articles of Impeachment or Resolution must include evidence when shared with the House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
• The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.
• The Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only to those who are being considered to endorse.
• 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.
• The House of Representatives must be given reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether or not they will endorse an impeachment complaint. However, the Supreme Court has the power to review whether this period is sufficient. The petitioner who invokes the SC's power to review should prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.
• 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 the Trail 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.
• The House of Representatives is required to 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 rule and to 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.

Moreover, Ting said the SC ruled that all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review. 

"The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure but with political characteristics. It may be sui generis (of its own kind), but it is not a purely political proceeding," she said.

"This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause, and the right to speedy disposition of cases apply to the entire impeachment process itself," she added.

(Reports from Joahna Lei Casilao, GMA Integrated News)