Sara Duterte expresses gratitude after SC voids impeachment complaint
Vice President Sara Duterte expressed her gratitude after the Supreme Court declared that the impeachment complaint against her was unconstitutional.
On July 30, she released a statement on the ruling, extending her thanks to her defense team, who took on her case "even when no one else was willing," the petitioners, who had the "conviction to challenge the abuses of the House of Representatives," and her supporters.
"Our country deserves better, and we shall stand tall, strong, and resilient against leaders whose greed will bring down our homeland," Duterte said. "We deserve better."
The SC said in its ruling that the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte is barred by the one-year rule in the Constitution because there were three complaints that came ahead of it.
Legal luminaries weigh in
Former SC Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said that the High Court's decision on Duterte's case may have been "legally correct," but he views it as "unfair."
"I say so because it rules the Articles of Impeachment adopted by the [House] as violating the only one complaint within one year rule by crafting a new definition of what constitutes being 'initiated' and applying it to a complaint adopted in reliance on its previous and then prevailing definition," he wrote on Facebook.
He said that in the Davide case, the SC defined initiating an impeachment complaint as putting it in the order of business and referring it to a proper committee.
According to the SC, the first three complaints, filed in December 2024, are considered "effectively dismissed," as the House did not act on them. The one-year bar is reckoned "from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable." The fourth complaint, filed under the second mode, was filed on Feb. 5, 2025.
"No new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than Feb. 6, 2026," the decision read.
However, as Azcuna noted, the three earlier complaints were not referred to the committee on justice, and thus were not initiated.
Former SC Associate Justice and ex-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales also offered her definition of initiating the impeachment complaint.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's the transmittal of the complaint [to the committee]," she told Rappler.
Meanwhile, retired SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said that in previous impeachment complaints filed by the House, including the Francisco ruling, there was no hearing at the plenary level because it happens at the committee level. The SC's decision stated that due process principles require providing the respondent the opportunity to be heard on the draft Articles of Impeachment before it is transmitted to the Senate.
"Nobody in the world knew that there [had] to be a hearing in the plenary level, it's a new requirement," Carpio said during the Kapihan sa Manila Bay forum on July 30.
"The SC imposed this new requirement retroactively. How could the House comply with the new requirements when [they] never existed when the House took up the four new complaints?"
In another post, Azcuna noted that the new definition of initiating an impeachment complaint would "unduly constrain" the House's exclusive power to start impeachment cases.
"The new rules of the Supreme Court in its decision, unless reconsidered, would add a plethora of requirements ranging from prior notice and hearing, to attaching the evidence, to requiring proof that the Representatives read and understood the charges and the supporting evidence. All these will effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure," he said.
Carpio added that the SC could still reverse the ruling because the House said it will file a motion for reconsideration.
House spokesperson Atty. Princess Abante said that the High Court's decision was based on factual premises or findings that were "false" and contradictory to the lower chamber's records.
She also said that the SC's requisites regarding due process are "not in the Constitution or House rules.
"These are requirements that basically amend the Constitution and represent an unacceptable intrusion into the exclusive powers of the House of Representatives," Abante said.