The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed its earlier ruling that declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional, court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting said Thursday.

“By a unanimous vote of all those participating, the SC En Banc denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives which sought to reverse the decision… that declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional,” Ting said in a press briefing.

“It affirmed that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025 was already barred by the Article XI, Section 3, Subsection 5 of the Constitution,” she added.

The resolution was promulgated on January 28, Wednesday.

Ting said that Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave while Associate Justice Benjamin Caguio did not take part in the voting.

According to the spokesperson, the resolution is immediately executory upon service to all parties.

“No further pleadings will be allowed,” she said.

In July 2025, the SC ruled unanimously and deemed that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. 

Magistrates also held that the articles violate Duterte’s right to due process.

To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected to 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.

The House of Representatives then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that  the archiving of the first three complaints was done after the transmittal of the fourth complaint, thus not initiating the one-year ban.

In its ruling, the SC clarified that the first three impeachment complaints filed in accordance with the first mode were not placed in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.

It said that session days for the purpose of an impeachment complaint does not mean legislative session days.

According to the SC, a session day for the purposes of Article XI is interpreted to mean a calendar day in which the House holds a session.

Meanwhile, the SC reiterated Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, but stressed that an impeachment complaint filed through the first mode is deemed initiated for the purposes of the one-year ban when:

a properly verified and endorsed impeachment complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice;
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
no Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate before the House of Representatives adjourns sine die.
Aside from this, the SC affirmed the power of the House to promulgate its own Rules on Impeachment. However, it said that Section 2 of the House Rules requires the referral to the Committee on Justice when filed through the second mode or when an impeachment complaint is endorsed by at least one-third of the House.

Meanwhile, the High Court said that due process in impeachment process is sui generis or a class of its own.

It also said that the Doctrine of Operative Fact, which may nullify a law or executive act but still sustain its effects, does not apply in the case when it is used to justify an unconstitutional act.

(With reports from Joahna Casilao, GMA Integrated News)