The impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte has effectively hit a dead end after the Supreme Court (SC) upheld its ruling declaring the House of Representatives’ impeachment process unconstitutional.
Here’s what happened, why it matters, and what comes next.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
On Thursday, the Supreme Court en banc denied with finality the House of Representatives’ motion for reconsideration, voting unanimously among participating justices.
This means the SC’s August 2025 ruling stands: the impeachment of Vice President Duterte was unconstitutional and cannot proceed.
According to SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting, the Court reaffirmed that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025, violated Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, which limits impeachment proceedings to once per year.
Why was the fourth impeachment complaint barred?
Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024—largely over the alleged misuse of confidential funds. But the House later endorsed a fourth complaint, backed by more than one-third of its members.
The Supreme Court ruled that this fourth complaint was already constitutionally prohibited, as earlier impeachment complaints had been initiated within the same one-year period.
In short: even if the fourth complaint had broader support, the Constitution bars multiple impeachment attempts against the same official within a year.
What does this mean for the impeachment process?
Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said the ruling makes impeachment an “impossible dream.”
Sotto accused the Supreme Court of judicial overreach, arguing that the Court effectively created new rules for Congress to follow—something he says violates the separation of powers.
“The SC admitted to introducing a rule for Congress in the conduct of impeachment. That is judicial legislation,” Sotto said.
Why is the ruling controversial?
Sotto called the decision “a sad day” for Constitutional Law, saying the Court had “amended the Constitution unconstitutionally.”
Critics of the ruling argue that the Constitution’s impeachment provisions are already clear, leaving no room for judicial interpretation.
Supporters, however, say the Court merely enforced constitutional safeguards meant to prevent political harassment through repeated impeachment attempts.
What did other lawmakers say?
Senator Imee Marcos welcomed the ruling, calling it a “victory for the rule of law.”
She emphasized that no one—regardless of political power—is above the Constitution, but added that another impeachment complaint could still be filed after February 6, when the one-year bar lapses.
“There will be no more shortcuts,” Marcos said, “but we are fully certain that another impeachment complaint will be filed.”
Has the impeachment been formally closed?
Yes, at least for now.
Following the Supreme Court’s August ruling, the Senate voted to archive the articles of impeachment against Duterte, effectively shelving the case.
With the SC’s denial of the motion for reconsideration, there is no remaining legal avenue to revive the impeachment under the same understanding of the Constitution.
What happens next?
-
No impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte can move forward within the same constitutional period
-
Any new impeachment effort would have to be filed after the one-year bar expires
-
The ruling is likely to be cited in future impeachment cases, reshaping how Congress initiates impeachment proceedings
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision stands—and with it, a clearer, if contested, limit on Congress’ power to impeach.
About The Author
