Supreme Court voids impeachment complaint against Sara Duterte

Vice President Sara Duterte scored a major legal victory on Friday, July 25, after the Supreme Court struck down an impeachment complaint against her, ruling it was unconstitutional.

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte in February, accusing her of misusing public funds, amassing unusual wealth, and threatening to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., the First Lady, and the House Speaker.

The court said it was not absolving Duterte of the charges but the ruling may nevertheless be a huge boost for her political ambitions.

The outcome could be a huge boost for the political ambitions of Duterte. She is widely seen as a strong contender for the 2028 presidency, which Marcos cannot contest due to a single-term limit for Philippine presidents.

Duterte's legal counsel welcomes SC decision

Duterte's camp, in a statement, welcomed SC's ruling, describing it as "a resounding triumph of due process and constitutional order."

"From the outset, the impeachment complaint suffered from glaring procedural and constitutional defects," they claimed. "It was not properly referred to the House Committee on Justice, a deliberate maneuver designed to evade the one-year bar rule and railroad the complaint without the mandated deliberation, verification, and opportunity for defense."

They pointed out that "in a span of mere hours," 215 House members "were summoned, not to deliberate, but to sign, and in most cases, without even reading the complaint."

"This gross irregularity struck at the heart of the due procees guarantees enshrined in our Constitution."

"The Supreme Court has now spoken with clarity and firmness: Due process is not optional," Duterte's legal team said. "Impeachment is a grave constitutional mechanism, reserved only for the most serious of offenses, and must be wielded with solemnity, not political expediency. It cannot be reduced to a partisan tool nor serve as leverage for budgetary favors or electoral gain. The people deserve better."

The VP's legal counsel noted that they maintain that Duterte "deserves nothing less than a process that reflects the will of the people, not the pressure of political convenience."

They went on to thank the SC "for standing as the final sentinel of constitutional rights" as well as Filipinos "who supported this cause not out of political loyalty, but out of principle."

"We affirm our belief that justice rushed is justice denied, and that the Constitution must be followed not only when it is convenient, but especially when it is difficult."

"Let this serve as a lasting reminder: The rule of law must never be sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Let us now return our attention to the greater challenges facing the nation and pursue unity through justice, not division through haste."

A conviction in an impeachment trial would have seen Duterte banned from office for life. She has said the move to impeach her, which came amid a bitter feud with Marcos, was politically motivated.

More than 200 members of the lower house had endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate, having not acted on the first three filings.

"The articles of impeachment, which was the fourth complaint, violated the one year period ban because there were three complaints that came ahead of it," Supreme Court Spokesperson Camille Ting told a media briefing.

As a result, the Senate then did not have the authority to convene an impeachment tribunal, the court added.

Marcos has distanced himself from the proceedings against his estranged Vice President, saying the government's executive branch cannot intervene in the matter.

In a statement, Palace Press Office Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro said the court's decision must be respected. "We have yet to review the full text of the Supreme Court's decision. We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions," said Castro.

"The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates," she added.

'Duty-bound'

Impeachment Court spokesman Reginald Tongol, meanwhile, said the Senate would abide by the court’s decision, citing its “duty to respect the finality” of the High Court’s ruling.

“The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court,” Tongol said.

He added that the Supreme Court’s judgment “validates the prudence and restraint exercised by the Senate majority,” which was criticized as intended delay by critics, observers, and legal experts.

“This decision affirms the careful and deliberate posture taken by the Impeachment Court—that constitutional issues surrounding the Articles required clarity before trial proceedings could commence,” said Tongol.

There was no immediate comment from members of the House prosecution panel, but a spokesperson for the lower house said that while it respects the court, "its constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here."

The Supreme Court said a fresh complaint could be filed against Duterte in February 2026 once the ban expires.

The full decision can be read here.

Duterte is the daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte, who is now in the custody of the International Criminal Court over his bloody war on drugs. He has denied wrongdoing.