25/07/2025
The (SC) En Banc, during its session today, July 25, 2025, has declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.
However, the SC 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.
The ruling of the SC is immediately executory. It shall be deemed served on the petitioners and promulgated upon publication in the SC website and receipt of the parties of their digital copy in accordance with A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court.
The case stemmed from four impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte. The first three were filed before the House of Representatives (HOR) by private individuals and different groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024.
A fourth complaint was lodged by a resolution approved by more than one-third of the HOR members of the 19th Congress on February 5, 2025, which was transmitted as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on the same day. This was followed by two petitions filed before the SC challenging its constitutionality.
The SC voted 13-0-2, with the Justices present voting unanimously to grant the petitions to annul the Articles of Impeachment, and Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa inhibiting and Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh on leave.
The Decision, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, ruled that all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review, โconsidering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process.โ
In declaring that the Articles of Impeachment were barred by the one-year rule, the Decision differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth complaint. The first three, it said, were filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with an endorsement by any HOR member. The fourth one was through Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the HOR members.
The SC took note that the HOR in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered โterminated or dismissedโ upon the adjournment of the HOR.
The SC also determined that due process applies to the impeachment process. It laid down the following due process requirements in impeachment proceedings:
1. The Articles of Impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared with HOR members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
2. The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.
3. The Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the HOR, not only those who are being considered to endorse.
4. 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 HOR members.
5. The HOR must be given a reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint. The SC, however, has the power to review whether this period is sufficient, but petitionerโwho invokes the SCโs power to reviewโshould prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.
6. 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 a betrayal 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.
7. To ensure that respondent in the impeachment complaint is heard, the HOR is required to:
(a) 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 HOR rules. The Constitution only requires an opportunity to be heard. It is up the respondent to waive this fundamental right and opt to present his/her evidence at the Senate trial; and
(b) Make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the HOR. It is the HORโnot one-third of the HORโthat has the sole prerogative to initiate impeachment complaints. Thus, there must be some modicum of deliberation so that each member representing their constituents can be heard and thus convince others of their position. The transmittal however will only take place upon the qualified vote of one-third of the HOR.
Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/596r7cde.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/xukhchaf
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando at https://tinyurl.com/3cjtcpjv.
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3wdhk52w.
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Rodil V. Zalameda at https://tinyurl.com/mr47p9ux.
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/mr22rane.
Read the Concurring Opinion of Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan at https://tinyurl.com/u9um2h54.
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.
