Supreme Court Blocks Vice President Sara Duterte Impeachment
Several lawmakers expressed dismay after the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte is unconstitutional. This decision, they say, puts Filipinos at a disadvantage in the fight for accountability.
Akbayan party-list Representative Chel Diokno emphasized that the SC’s ruling means the effort to hold officials accountable has suffered a major setback. “In this decision, the people, the fight for accountability, lost. Impeachment is about accountability,” he said. Diokno maintained that the House of Representatives followed constitutional procedures by verifying the complaint and securing the endorsement of over one-third of its members.
“There was no violation of due process—only a demand to present the truth to the Filipino people,” he added. Despite the ruling, Diokno affirmed their commitment to continue pursuing accountability for government officials, working alongside civil society and reform-minded leaders to protect democracy.
Concerns Over Supreme Court’s Procedural Handling
Mamamayang Liberal party-list Representative Leila de Lima criticized the SC’s order as procedurally questionable. She pointed out that the House was not given the chance to properly present its arguments. “The Supreme Court’s decision today declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional is not only unprecedented; it is procedurally questionable,” de Lima remarked.
She explained that the House, as the main respondent, was denied the opportunity to file a formal comment, a requirement under the Rules of Court. Still, de Lima stressed her respect for the Supreme Court, but called for clarity in such a significant case. “The public deserves an explanation,” she said.
“This is not vindication or exoneration. No sin was erased. No name was restored. The decision was technical. The allegations remain true, grave, and unanswered,” de Lima added.
Justice Remains Elusive for Filipinos, Lawmakers Say
ACT Teachers party-list Representative Antonio Tinio lamented the difficulty of pursuing justice in the Philippines following the SC’s ruling. “We are dismayed with the decision of the Supreme Court. It’s really hard to hold corrupt officials accountable,” he said.
Tinio accused the ruling of providing legal cover to efforts aimed at derailing the impeachment trial. Nevertheless, he assured that the public would continue to demand answers regarding the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
Supreme Court Explains Legal Basis
On Friday, SC spokesperson Camille Ting clarified that the impeachment complaint was barred by the one-year rule, preventing the Senate from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. However, this does not absolve the Vice President, as another complaint can be filed after February 6, 2026.
Meanwhile, House spokesperson Princess Abante announced they would review the SC decision once a copy is received but expressed concern over what she called judicial interference. “We respect the Supreme Court. But our constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here,” Abante said.
She highlighted that the House holds exclusive power to initiate impeachment, referencing established Supreme Court rulings. “Allowing judicial interference risks undermining the very principle of checks and balances. Impeachment is a political act rooted in the people’s will—no legal technicality should silence it,” she stressed.
The House intends to explore all remedies to protect its independence and uphold its constitutional role.
Background of the Impeachment Complaint
Vice President Sara Duterte was impeached on February 5 after 215 lawmakers signed a complaint alleging misuse of confidential funds, threats against officials, and other constitutional violations. The House immediately forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate, as mandated when at least one-third of House members endorse the complaint.
Earlier petitions sought to halt the impeachment, arguing procedural lapses and the one-complaint-per-year rule. The House countered, clarifying that the impeachment process complied with the constitution’s 10-session-day rule. Their timeline showed the initial complaint was filed on December 2, and the complaints were transmitted on February 5, exactly ten session days later.
For more news and updates on Vice President Sara Duterte impeachment, visit Filipinokami.com.
