House Prosecutors to Submit UP Law Letter in Duterte Impeachment Case
MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutors preparing for the potential impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte plan to include an open letter from the University of the Philippines–College of Law in their motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s ruling. This move highlights growing debate over the court’s dismissal of the complaint based on the one-year bar rule.
Manila 3rd District Representative Joel Chua, a key member of the House prosecution team, expressed agreement with the concerns raised by more than 100 UP Law faculty members. Their letter questioned the Supreme Court’s July 25 decision that invalidated the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte. The letter also urged that any new impeachment rules introduced by the court’s ruling should apply only prospectively, respecting Congress’s exclusive power to initiate impeachment.
“I will suggest to my colleagues that the UP Law faculty position be submitted as an annex or addendum to the House’s Motion for Reconsideration or the assertions interfaced with the body of the MR itself,” said Chua, who chairs the House Committee on Good Government.
The House prosecution team plans to file their appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision by August 11.
Supreme Court Dismissal and Its Implications
The Supreme Court, led by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, dismissed the impeachment complaint endorsed by 215 lawmakers. The court ruled that previous complaints filed on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024 were “terminated and archived” as of February 5, the same day the fourth complaint was passed to the Senate. Consequently, the court stated, “no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026.”
Despite disagreeing with the court’s ruling, Chua acknowledged, “we do understand why the decision was written the way it is.” However, he emphasized that the Constitution’s impeachment provisions are “among the most specific and meticulously written parts during the 1986 Constitutional Convention,” leaving “no space for imagination and misinterpretation.”
He added, “There is no lingering mandate for an enabling law. The Supreme Court’s prior decisions on impeachment questions simply added articulation and clarification but did not add to or amend anything in the impeachment provisions.”
UP Law Faculty Warn of Consequences
The UP College of Law’s open letter echoed this view and cautioned that the Supreme Court’s ruling carries unforeseen consequences. One concern is that the House must now convene as a full chamber even if only one-third of its members have signed and verified an impeachment resolution. This, the faculty warned, “deviates from the design to protect the process from a tyrannical majority,” as the plenary could now block impeachment resolutions.
The letter also highlighted that the ruling could encourage the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule, complicating the impeachment process further.
Legal Precedents and House Actions
The UP experts supported the House’s actions by referencing two landmark Supreme Court rulings: Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice. Both decisions clarify that impeachment begins when the House files a complaint and refers it to the appropriate committee—steps that did not occur with the first three complaints.
Instead, House members drafted and endorsed a fourth complaint, which they transmitted to the Senate on February 5. Following this, the earlier complaints were archived. According to the faculty, this procedure means the House did not commit an abuse of discretion, “much less a grave one.”
They argued that if the Court intended to impose new rules on the House, the public’s prior reliance on existing procedures warrants at least a prospective application of the decision, rather than invalidating the House’s previous actions.
For more news and updates on Duterte impeachment, visit Filipinokami.com.
