by Atty. Emmanuel S. Tipon
The Philippine Supreme Court unanimously ruled on July 25, 2025 that the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte transmitted by the House of Representatives based upon the fourth impeachment complaint is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Philippine Constitution. Duterte vs House of Representatives, G.R. No. 278353; Torreon vs House of Representatives, G.R. No. 278359.
There were four impeachment complaints against Duterte.
The first three were filed on December 2, 2024, December 4, 2024, and December 19, 2024. The fourth was filed on February 5, 2025.
The first three impeachment complaints were filed pursuant to Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Philippine Constitution which allows private citizens, upon a resolution or endorsement by any member of the House of Representatives, to file a verified complaint for impeachment against an impeachable officer.
However, the House of Representatives did not act on them nor refer them to the Speaker of the House until February 5, 2025, when the House Secretary transmitted them to House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
On the same day, February 5, 2025, which was the final session of Congress, the members of the House were reportedly summoned to a caucus without being informed of its purpose.
During the caucus, members of the House filed another impeachment complaint against Duterte (fourth impeachment complaint) pursuant to Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Philippine Constitution.
A total of 215 out of 306 members of the House signed the fourth impeachment complaint, which exceeded the constitutional threshold of one-third votes of all members of the House.
At 4:47 p.m. on February 5, 2025, the House Secretary transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate even without a plenary vote. However, no formal action was taken by the Senate.
The Senate adjourned until June 2, 2025.
Senate President Francis Escudero said that the Senate cannot convene as an impeachment court during the congressional recess, as these were transmitted by the House only in the late afternoon of February 5, 2025.
On February 18, 2025, two separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition were filed with the Philippine Supreme Court by Sara Duterte and by a group of lawyers led by Israelito P. Torreon, challenging the constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint.
On June 10, 2025, the Senate convened as an impeachment court. It voted to return the impeachment complaint to the House to clarify the lawfulness of how the Articles of Impeachment were constituted.
On June 11, 2025, Vice President Duterte received the Articles of Impeachment and the writ of summons issued by the Senate.
On June 17, 2025, Vice President Duterte filed her Answer, maintaining that the impeachment complaint should be declared void ab initio for violating the one-year ban under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution grants it the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch of government, even of its co-equal branches, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1, Paragraph 2.
The Court said that there is an actual case or controversy between the parties and that the issues are ripe for the Court’s determination.
The Court said that questions on impeachment proceedings are justiciable, especially when they involve the determination of the metes and bounds of constitutional powers conferred on political bodies or when there is an allegation of violation of fundamental rights.
In taking cognizance of this case, the Court does not assert dominance over its co-equal bodies but merely interprets strict provisions of the Constitution, over which derives all sovereign will.
The Court said that Duterte has clear legal standing because, as the respondent of the impeachment complaint, she will sustain direct injury, that is, removal from office.
The Torreon petition filed by the lawyers also has standing as taxpayers, preventing the waste of public funds if the proceedings continue.
The Court further held that these cases are ripe for judicial determination, and the constitutionality question was raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Court also held that there was no violation of the hierarchy doctrine, which bars litigants from bypassing lower courts, because the case fell within the exceptions, such as that there are genuine issues of constitutionality and of transcendental importance where fundamental constitutional rights are imminently threatened.
The Court concluded that:
First, the due process clause applies to the impeachment process;
Second, all issues involving impeachment are subject to judicial review;
Third, since the 19th Congress terminated, the first three impeachment complaints became unacted upon, and since they were archived, they were effectively terminated and dismissed;
Fourth, there are different modes of initiating the Articles of Impeachment, and the one-year bar is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or becomes no longer viable;
Fifth, Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution is subject to the due process requirement which require that
(1) the draft Articles of Impeachment should be accompanied by evidence,
(2) the evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges,
(3) the draft of the Articles of impeachment and evidence should be made available to all members of the House,
(4) the respondent should have an opportunity to be heard,
(5) a reasonable period of time must be given to members of the House to reach an independent decision,
(6) the charges must be for impeachable acts or omissions during the current term of the impeachable officer,
(7) to accord the opportunity to be heard requires providing a copy of the articles and evidence to the respondent, and the comment of the respondent must be made available to all members of the House, not only one-third.
The Court concluded that the first three impeachment complaints remained unacted upon and archived by the 19th Congress before its adjournment, and they were effectively dismissed.
The fourth Article of Impeachment is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5), and is also constitutionally infirm and therefore null and void ab initio.
Therefore, the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute itself into an impeachment court.
New impeachment complaints against the respondent, if any, may only be commenced no earlier than February 6, 2026.
The Decision is immediately executory.
This article is a general overview of the subject matter discussed and is not intended as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established between the writer and readers relying upon the contents of this article.
ATTY. EMMANUEL S. TIPON has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. His current practice focuses on immigration law and appellate criminal defense. He writes law books for the world’s largest law book publishing company and writes legal articles for newspapers. Atty. Tipon served as a U.S. Immigration Officer. He co-authored the best-seller “Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. Atty. Tipon was born in Laoag City, Philippines. Cell Phone (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: filamlaw@yahoo.com.
About Author
+ There are no comments
Add yours