ASEANEWS HEADLINE-VP Du30 IMPEACHMENT | MANILA: VP Sara’s impeachment unconstitutional — SC
Photo taken in May shows Vice President Sara Duterte speaking to overseas Filipino workers in The Hague. Malacañang urged the public to respect the Supreme Court’s decision and to continue trusting the country’s institutions.
.
.
‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court bars impeachment vs. VP Sara Duterte | ANC
SC – Articles of Impeachment vs. VP Sara Duterte are unconstitutional | GMA Integrated News
Unanimous ruling does not touch merits of case
MANILA, Philippines — In a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court declared the Articles of Impeachment lodged by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Duterte “unconstitutional,” saying that it violates the one-year rule under the Constitution as well as her right to due process.
“Our fundamental law is clear: the end does not justify the means…There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. This is what the rule of just law means. This is what the fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment,” SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said as she quoted portions of the SC decision in a press conference yesterday afternoon.
“However, the Court said it is not absolving Vice President Duterte of any of the charges against her. But any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting Feb. 6, 2026,” Ting said.
She said the Supreme Court, in a 13-0-2 decision, found the Articles of Impeachment, more commonly referred to as the impeachment complaint, filed by the House against Duterte at the Senate last Feb. 5, to be violative of the one-year rule under Article 11, Section 3 of the
Constitution as well as of Duterte’s right to due process enshrined under Article 3 or the Bill of Rights also of the Constitution.
.
 |
.
“Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings,” Ting said, expounding on the SC’s ruling.
Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the Constitution states that “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
Three impeachment complaints were filed by private citizens and groups against Duterte late last year but they were never tackled in the plenary. Instead, the House, with 215 votes, approved a fourth impeachment complaint last Feb. 5, which was immediately followed by the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
Duterte was impeached by the House under the leadership of President Marcos’ cousin, Martin Romualdez, for alleged betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption and other high crimes.
.
|
|
The charges stemmed from her “kill” remark against the President, First Lady and Romualdez, her alleged misuse of the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education when she was still its secretary, as well as her alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings when she was Davao City mayor.
According to the SC’s decision, the one-year bar is reckoned “from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable.”
“[T]he three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on Feb. 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026,” a portion of the SC’s 97-page decision, released a few hours after the press conference, read.
The decision was penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen with a concurrence of all the members of the Supreme Court, except for Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa who inhibited for having a close relationship with one of the counsels of a party involved in the case, and Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh who was on official leave.
Due process violated
Furthermore, the high tribunal maintained that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases, “applies to the entire impeachment process.”
The SC said the right to be heard is an essential part of due process, which was not afforded to Duterte.
“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 decision read.
|
|
.
“The Constitution only requires an opportunity to be heard. It is up to the respondent to waive this fundamental right and opt to present his/her evidence at the Senate trial,” it added.
Palace to public: Respect SC ruling
Malacañang has called on the public to respect the Supreme Court’s ruling on the impeachment case against Vice President Duterte.
The Palace, however, has yet to review the full text of the SC’s decision, according to Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro.
“We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court’s decision and place their trust in our institutions,” 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.”
.
|
|
.
In the second episode of BBM Podcast released last month, Marcos reiterated he has no role in the impeachment trial of his ally-turned-critic.
Senate to abide by ruling
In a statement, the Senate impeachment court said it would abide by the SC’s decision, citing its “duty to respect the finality” of the high court’s ruling.
“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,” impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol said yesterday.
“This decision affirms the careful and deliberate posture taken by the Impeachment Court – that constitutional issues surrounding the Articles required clarity before trial proceedings could commence,” Tongol said.
Tongol said the impeachment court now awaits formal transmittal of the SC’s decision and any relevant guidance that may affect the impeachment court’s jurisdiction moving forward.
|
|
.
Duterte camp: Rule of law upheld
Duterte’s defense team lauded the Court’s decision, saying that it “affirms what we had maintained from the outset, that the 4th impeachment complaint is constitutionally infirm.”
“We welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution,” the defense team said in a statement.
“This unanimous Decision has once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process. We remain prepared to address the allegations at the proper time and before the appropriate forum,” it added.
|
|
.
Duterte is scheduled to arrive in South Korea where she will attend a gathering organized by the Filipino community on July 27. Her flight back to Manila will be on July 28, the day of the 4th State of the Nation Address of President Marcos.
Senators react
For Sen. Francis Escudero, there is no judicial overreach in SC’s review of petitions questioning the impeachment of Vice President Duterte, stressing that they will respect the ruling by the high tribunal.
Asked if the Senate feels undermined by the Supreme Court’s involvement, Escudero rejected the idea, saying critics who suggest overreach are implying they know better than the high court.
“If the SC makes a decision, even if you agree or not… we need to respect and follow it as officers of the court,” Escudero said in Filipino.
While senators have yet to clarify whether this means the impeachment court would no longer hold trial, some have already signaled that they could “disregard” the SC ruling.
|
|
.
Sen. Joel Villanueva, citing the sui generis (a class of its own) nature of the impeachment court, said the proceedings would continue.
“Whether the Supreme Court made that decision or not, the Impeachment Court will proceed. We’ll proceed. And I’m sure someone will raise it during the impeachment proceedings,” Villanueva said.
Villanueva added that he expects his fellow senators to debate whether or not to abide by the SC decision and that a majority vote could decide the matter.
For Sen. Bam Aquino, the impeachment trial needs to proceed, and called for a caucus to tackle how to proceed with respect to the SC decision that “undermines (the Senate’s) duty under the Constitution.”
This was echoed by Sen. Francis Pangilinan, who raised concern over the decision as it appeared to sideline the legal presumption of regularity in the acts of a co-equal branch.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros said she was dismayed by the SC’s decision, but stressed that the Supreme Court did not absolve Duterte of the charges against her and that the House may again file the articles of impeachment next year.
Sen. Imee Marcos, a staunch ally of the Vice President, urged fellow senators to respect the SC’s decision.
Sen. Vicente Sotto III welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, describing the ruling as a “complete climate change” in judicial attitude.
“There was a time when the Court did not touch a political question. This is complete climate change, exactly on the eve of the opening of the 20th Congress,” Sotto said.
Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, for his part, said the outcome affirmed his earlier move to dismiss the complaint.
“When I moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint vs VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit. When the SC ruled it as unconstitutional, I’m sure they were guided also by the Holy Spirit,” he posted on Facebook.
.
|
|
.
While not directly stating the trial would no longer proceed, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada said the chamber must abide by the SC decision and begin to focus on other pressing issues.
Former senator Franklin Drilon said he was saddened by the SC decision but acknowledged that no trial can take place now that there’s no longer an impeachment complaint.
Asked if the Senate and House can assert that the impeachment process is the legislative branch’s business, Drilon said such a situation could trigger a “constitutional crisis” and urged lawmakers to no longer challenge the high court. — Neil Jayson Servallos, Helen Flores, Bella Cariaso, Janvic Mateo
Memento Maxima Digital Marketing.
ANGRY
