MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court’s latest directive on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte centers on a crucial constitutional matter: whether the House of Representatives followed the rule requiring impeachment complaints to be acted upon within 10 session days. This four-word keyphrase—impeachment complaints 10 session days—remains at the heart of the legal debate.
Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio explained the significance of this keyphrase during an interview on ANC’s Headstart. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s involvement is justified only when constitutional questions arise.
“The only constitutional issue pending now in the Supreme Court that matters is whether the House followed the 10-day session limit,” Carpio said. “In other words, from the time the first impeachment complaint was filed, it must be acted upon by the House plenary within 10 session days.”
Carpio clarified that the main issue before the Court is factual: determining the exact number of session days that passed from the filing of the first impeachment complaint against Duterte. “It’s a matter of fact whether the House acted on the first impeachment complaint within 10 session days,” he added.
Supreme Court Demands Congress Submit Timeline
On July 8, the Supreme Court issued a resolution consolidating two petitions—one from Vice President Sara Duterte and another from a group of Mindanao lawyers. Acting on these petitions, the Court ordered both the House of Representatives and the Senate to submit, under oath, a detailed timeline and relevant documents concerning the processing of impeachment complaints against Duterte.
The Court’s directive asked for specifics, including the status and endorsement dates of the first three complaints filed by private citizens, the basis for the House Secretary General’s actions related to transmittals, and the timeline for drafting, circulating, and presenting the articles of impeachment in the House.
Congress was given a strict, non-extendible deadline to comply with this order. The Supreme Court’s notice aims to clarify if Congress adhered to the constitutional rule that impeachment complaints “must be included in the order of business within 10 session days,” Carpio noted.
Impeachment Complaints 10 Session Days: Timing Is Key
Carpio referred to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Francisco v. House of Representatives, which dealt with the impeachment proceedings against then-Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. He explained that under this precedent, a resolution signed by at least one-third of House members filed after the 10th session day cannot override earlier complaints.
“In the case of Francisco, the resolution signed by one-third of the members was filed beyond the 10th session day. That’s why the Supreme Court said it cannot be done anymore,” Carpio recalled.
“But in this case, the resolution was filed within the 10th session day. Therefore, it automatically prevails over the first, second, and third impeachment complaints.” He stressed that whether the House complied with the 10-day rule will determine the resolution’s validity.
“If the 10 session days were complied with for the first complaint, then the same applies for the second and third,” Carpio said.
He warned that if the Supreme Court finds that the 10-session day rule was violated, the impeachment trial must stop. “If the Supreme Court says the 10-session day rule was breached, this impeachment court will have to dissolve itself. They cannot continue,” he explained.
Should this happen, Carpio noted, the House may refile the complaint after the one-year bar lapses, which is one year from the filing of the first impeachment complaint. “At the end of December 2025, the House can refile the same impeachment articles,” he said.
No Restraining Order, Senate May Proceed with Trial
Carpio addressed concerns that the Senate might delay the impeachment trial out of “judicial courtesy” while awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. He clarified that the Senate can choose to proceed, as no temporary restraining order exists.
“It will be up to the majority of the Senate, as an impeachment court, whether to proceed or not while awaiting the Supreme Court decision. If they want to proceed, they can, because there is no temporary restraining order,” he said.
He added, “Normally, unless there is a restraining order, you should proceed.” Under the Constitution, the impeachment court holds “the sole power to try and decide,” and jurisdiction issues can be raised as affirmative defenses during the trial, but not beforehand.
“Once the articles of impeachment are received, the trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. They have no choice but to proceed with the trial,” Carpio emphasized.
Respecting Co-Equal Branches of Government
Carpio urged caution in respecting the constitutional boundaries among the government’s three co-equal branches. He cited the principle of giving full faith and credit to enrolled bills from Congress.
“We have this concept of three equal branches of government… If there is an enrolled bill from the Congress to the president, that enrolled bill is given full faith and confidence that what they did was correct,” he explained.
Carpio questioned the necessity of the Supreme Court demanding details about whether House members read the articles of impeachment before signing. “The moment they sign, you give full faith and credit already that they read it. I mean, you do not say—you cannot ask each and every one of the congressmen who signed the resolution or who signed the bill, did you read it when you signed it?” he said.
“When you sign, that means you read it. You have to give full faith and credit to that… No, we don’t ask those questions anymore. I mean, out of respect to our co-equal branch, you don’t ask those questions anymore,” he stressed.
For more news and updates on impeachment complaints 10 session days, visit Filipinokami.com.
