Denying the Lower House’s appeal.
In a decision made by the Supreme Court En Banc, it upheld with finality its decision on the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, which it earlier deemed as “unconstitutional.”
By a unanimous vote of all those participating, the court denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives, which sought to reverse the SC’s decision dating July 25, 2025.
Although, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa took no part in the case, while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.
In the final decision, it affirmed that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025 was already barred by Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court first highlighted that the first three impeachment complaints filed in accordance with the first mode of initiating an impeachment—Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2)—were not placed in 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,” it explained.
Instead, the court interpreted it to mean calendar day in which the House of Representatives holds a session, citing the Article XI in the Constitution where it was given in its “plain and ordinary sense.”
SC also reiterated the Gutierrez v. House of Representatives case. But further elaborated that an impeachment complaint filed in accordance with the first mode of impeachment—Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2)—is deemed initiated for purposes of the one-year bar in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) by basis of three rules.
The cour noted that one, there should be “a properly verified and endorsed impeachment complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice.”
Another point must be there is “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, subsection (2) of the Constitution.”
Lastly, “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.”
HOW THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WORKS UNDER CURRENT HOUSE RULES
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also affirmed the power of the House of Representatives to promulgate its own Rules on Impeachment.
But it clarified that under 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.
As provided in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (4) of the Constitution, that is where the endorsement of at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives would be sufficient to transmit the Articles of Impeachment.
The Supreme Court said that in line with the wording in the current Rules of Impeachment at the Lower House, the lawmakers may refer an impeachment complaint already endorsed by at least one-third of all its members to the Committee on Justice only for specified list of purposes.
First, is to ensure that the endorsement of the members of the House is verified. Second, 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.
And three, 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.
They then observed that there is a fundamental difference between the first and second modes of initiating impeachment complaints.
It regarded the Article XI, Section 3, subsections (2) and (3) cover the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint. While Article XI, Section 3, subsection (4) covers the second mode of initiating an impeachment complaint.
In the first mode, the impeachment is initiated through the regular and deliberative process in the House of Representatives, where it all starts with q verified complaint that may be filed either by a member of the House or by a private citizen with the endorsement of a member.
Upon filing, this complaint is referred to the House Committee on Justice, which evaluates its sufficiency in form and substance and conducts the appropriate hearings. Then, after a favorable committee action, will the impeachment process proceed further.
“This mode therefore emphasizes institutional screening and committee review,” it was highlighted.
Meanwhile, the latter is the alternative and direct mechanism for initiating impeachment, where a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment signed by at least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives immediately initiates impeachment proceedings.
These provisions reflect a deliberate constitutional design; subsections (2) and (3) provide a structured and committee-directed approach, while subsection (4) allows a streamlined initiation when a sufficient level of consensus already exists.”
DUE PROCESS OF LAW APPLIES TO IMPEACHMENT
The Supreme Court also affirmed that due process of law applies to the impeachment process, stating, “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.“
Furthermore, “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.”
“However, 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,” added the court.
At least for the second mode of initiating an impeachment complaint, there are only three items that need to be satisfied.
First is the grounds invoked in the complaint or resolution are those contained in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution. After that, the procedure is governed by the Rules on Impeachment set by the House of Representatives prior to any filing of any impeachment complaint.
Lastly, is that all endorsing members bring furnished copy of the complaint and all its supporting evidence.
TRANSMITTAL OF THE ARTICLES
In the same decision, the Supreme Court also underscored that the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment should be done in a plenary session of the House of Representatives, where all the members having full copies of the complaint and its accompanying evidence mentioned in Rule IV, Section 14 of the House Rules on Impeachment.
“Transmittal to the Senate, however, requires only a vote of one-third of its members for the first mode of initiating a complaint, or proof of the endorsement of a complaint by one-third of its members for the second mode,” it added.
The court also stated that the “operative fact doctrine” cannot be invoked by the party directly responsible in the commission of an unconstitutional act. Thus, this does not apply in the case of Duterte vs. the House of Representatives.
REACTIONS
In a statement, VP Sara Duterte’s defense team, led by Atty. Michael Poa, said, “We acknowledge the Resolution of the Supreme Court denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.”
He added, “We thank the Honorable Court for a ruling that now definitively lays down clear and authoritative guidance on the constitutional limits and proper treatment of impeachment proceedings.”
“With these issues settled by the Court, the matter is now closed. We should then move on to address the nation’s other pressing concerns,” her counsel’s statement ended.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Faustino Dy III said in a short statement that the legislative body recognizes the decision of the high court. “Kinikilala ng Kapulungan ng mga Kinatawan ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema kaugnay ng Articles of Impeachment laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte,” he said.
Dy underscored, “Ang impeachment ay isang prosesong malinaw na itinatakda ng Konstitusyon at may tiyak na pamantayan. Mahalaga po ang pag-iingat sa proseso ng impeachment-isang pananagutang kaakibat ng mandato na ipinagkatiwala sa atin ng sambayanang Pilipino.”
As for Senate President Vicente Sotto III, he lashed out on this decision, calling it a “sad day for Constitutional Law students and professors.”
This, as the “Constitution had just been amended unconstitutionally through Supreme Court overreach. It will take decades of retirements to correct this misinterpretation. When the law is clear, there is nothing to interpret, as any first year law student knows.“
Sotto continued, “The decision is a clear judicial legislation. The SC, as written in their decision, admitted of introducing a rule for Congress to follow in the conduct of impeachment. A clear encroachment on the power of the Legislative branch, as provided for by the Constitution.“
Lastly, he emphasized his stance: “Impeachment is now an impossible dream!“