On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court rendered its Decision granting the Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition challenging the constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint filed against VP Duterte. The High Court declared the complaint unconstitutional and void ab initio for violating the one-year bar rule and the due process clause. The Court, nonetheless, clarified that its Decision does not absolve Vice President Duterte of any charges and that a new impeachment complaint may be initiated against her, but no earlier than February 6, 2026.
Here are some of the Decision’s salient points:
The two modes of initiating an impeachment complaint
FIRST MODE: By a verified complaint filed by any member of the House of Representatives, or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any such member.
- After the filing or endorsement, the complaint will be included in the Order of Business;
- It will then be referred to the Committee on Justice;
- Committee hearings will ensue, where the respondent will be given the opportunity to be heard. This will also include the submission of pleadings and evidence;
- After hearings, the committee will submit its report and resolution to the House;
- At least 1/3 vote is required to affirm or override the committee’s resolution.
SECOND MODE: By a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least 1/3 of all the members of the House, which shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment.
The one-year bar rule
Under the Constitution:
“No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
The purpose of this rule is twofold: (1) to prevent undue harassment of the respondent public officer, and (2) to allow Congress to focus on its principal function: lawmaking.
Under case law, the one-year bar is reckoned from the initiation of the impeachment complaint, that is, from the time it is filed and referred to the proper committee.
The impeachment complaints against VP Duterte
In December 2024, concerned citizens filed three (3) separate impeachment complaints against VP Duterte, all endorsed by members of the House of Representatives [FIRST MODE]. The House, however, did not act on these complaints until February 5, 2025, when the House Secretary transmitted them to the Speaker.
Also on February 5, 2025, members of the House of Representatives were allegedly called to a “caucus,” during which 205 of the 306 members (~2/3) signed and filed a fourth impeachment complaint against the VP. The House Secretary transmitted the complaint, which constituted the Articles of Impeachment, to the Senate on the same day [SECOND MODE]. The Senate, however, adjourned its plenary session without taking formal action on the Articles. On February 7, 2025, an additional 25 House members signed the complaint.
February 5, 2025 is the House’s last session day before adjourning for the 2025 midterm elections. It resumed session on June 2. The Senate likewise adjourned and reconvened on the same date.
On February 18, 2025, VP Duterte and a group of lawyers filed two separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint.
On June 10, 2025, the Senate convened as an impeachment court and voted to return the impeachment case to the House for clarification on its constitutionality.
On June 11, 2025, VP Duterte received the Articles of Impeachment and the writ of summons issued by the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court. She filed her Answer on June 17, 2025.
On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the parties to submit details on the procedures employed by the House of Representatives in handling the four impeachment complaints. The House filed its Compliance on July 16, 2025.
The Supreme Court declared: (1) the 3 impeachment complaints filed under the first mode were effectively dismissed; and (2) the 4th impeachment complaint, filed under the second mode, was barred by the one-year rule and violated the due process clause, thus, unconstitutional and void ab initio.
On the first 3 impeachment complaints:
The Supreme Court said:
The House of Representatives … was unable to act on the first three impeachment complaints because of the adjournment of the 19th Congress. The impeachment complaints were neither referred to the Committee on Justice nor deliberated or voted upon by the members. They were in fact declared by the House as “archived.”
For constitutional purpose, the first three complaints were effectively dismissed.
On the 4th impeachment complaint:
Did the fourth impeachment complaint substitute as the action on the first three complaints?
The Supreme Court said no.
The fourth impeachment complaint was prepared independently of the first three, and not a product of committee hearings and deliberation on the latter. Rather, the fourth impeachment complaint is a distinct action to initiate an impeachment process.
The fourth impeachment complaint is barred by the one-year rule
📌 The Supreme Court provided additional guidance on the reckoning point for the one-year bar:
…given the impossibility of the initiation due to the House’s inaction and adjournment of its term. The one-year bar should be reckoned from the initiation of the impeachment complaint if unacted upon or when it is dismissed if it has been partially acted upon. The one-year bar may also start to commence upon the violation of the fundamental rights of the respondent which ousts the House or the Senate of jurisdiction.
In this case, the three impeachment complaints were property endorsed within the 10-session-day constitutional requirement. However, the three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2025.
The 4th impeachment complaint also violated the due process clause
📌 The Supreme Court also laid down the minimum due process requirements when an impeachment complaint is filed under the second mode.
What is the due process requirement when an impeachment complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of the members of the House and thereby constitutes the Articles of Impeachment?
The Supreme Court said:
- the House must ensure that the acts or omissions charged are committed during the term of the impeachable officers, and fall under any of the constitutional grounds, and that the same are sufficiently grave;
- the charge should be accompanied with clear and convincing evidence;
- the respondent must have been given the opportunity to be heard.
Further that, at a minimum, after arriving at the draft Articles of Impeachment with the accompanying evidence, the House should have:
- provided a copy of the draft Articles of Impeachment and accompanying evidence to the respondent, and give her a reasonable period within which to respond (may be waived);
- the Articles of Impeachment, accompanying evidence, and the respondent’s comment, if any, should be made available to all members of the House before they are required to cast their votes on whether or not to sign the impeachment complaint; the members should also have some form of deliberation for each to be heard;
- the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment will take place only upon the vote of at least 1/3 of the members of the House.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court recognized that the expedited same-day filing and transmittal of the fourth impeachment complaint does not automatically equate to whimsical exercise of judgment, absent sufficient proof.
Some Points to Ponder:
Under the Constitution:
“No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
Does this constitutional provision presuppose that an impeachment complaint has actually been initiated against the respondent public officer?
The Supreme Court held that there was an “impossibility of initiation” with respect to the first three impeachment complaints. In other words, they were never validly initiated. This raises the question: Is it constitutionally permissible to reckon the one-year bar from the time of dismissal if there was no valid initiation in the first place?
Considering the purpose of the one-year bar rule, to prevent undue harassment of the respondent and to allow Congress to focus on its primary function of lawmaking, if no complaint was validly initiated to begin with, can a subsequent impeachment complaint still be considered undue harassment? Or would it, in such a case, serve as a necessary mechanism for ensuring public accountability?
Disclaimer:
This article does not reflect any political position or view of the author. The questions raised here are intended solely for academic discussion. For a complete understanding of the issues and the Court’s reasoning, readers are encouraged to read the full text of the Supreme Court’s Decision in G.R. Nos. 278353 and 278359 (July 25, 2025), available at sc.judiciary.gov.ph.