Supreme Court’s Impeachment Ruling Challenges Accountability
MANILA, Philippines — Impeaching prominent officials could become nearly impossible if the Supreme Court (SC) holds firm on its recent decision regarding Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon warned on Thursday.
Ridon explained in an impromptu interview at the Batasang Pambansa complex that the SC ruling means any high-ranking official can simply have an ally in the House of Representatives file a weak impeachment complaint. This tactic would trigger the one-year ban on filing further impeachment cases, effectively blocking genuine efforts to hold officials accountable.
One-Year Ban Rule Sparks Legal Controversy
On July 25, SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the Articles of Impeachment sent by the House to the Senate were declared unconstitutional for violating the 1987 Constitution’s one-year prohibition on impeachment proceedings. This decision has raised alarm among legal experts and civil society groups.
“I think this sentiment was played out in the last couple of days – the actual objections of lawyers, lawyers’ groups, people’s organizations and our esteemed luminaries – about the effects of this particular decision, and I will reiterate it today. If the Supreme Court stands on this decision and it does not reconsider the ruling, nobody in the Philippines would be impeached,” Ridon, a practicing lawyer, told reporters.
He added, “Because any high-ranking official — a president, vice president, Supreme Court justice – if they have a friend who is a House member, they will endorse a complaint, ask them to file a complaint against me. Whether or not the House addresses that, the one year ban period starts.”
Ridon described the situation as unfortunate and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would reconsider its stance.
Background of the Impeachment Case
Vice President Sara Duterte was impeached on February 5 after 215 lawmakers from the 19th Congress filed and signed a fourth complaint. The complaint alleged misuse of confidential funds, intimidation of ranking officials, and other constitutional violations within her office.
Following the Constitution’s mandate, the Articles of Impeachment were immediately forwarded to the Senate for trial since at least one-third of House members—102 out of 306—endorsed the petition.
Legal Challenges to Impeachment Process
Two petitions were filed before the Supreme Court in February seeking to halt the impeachment proceedings. One came from Mindanao-based lawyers who argued the House failed to act on the complaints within 10 session days, as required by the Constitution.
The first impeachment complaint was filed in December 2024 but was only referred to the House committee on rules on February 5. However, the House contested this, clarifying that “session days” differ from calendar or working days.
In its defense, the House presented records showing the complaint was submitted on December 2, the 26th session day, and forwarded to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez on February 5, the 36th session day—exactly 10 session days later.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Its Implications
Although the Articles of Impeachment were declared unconstitutional, the SC emphasized that this does not clear the vice president of wrongdoing. The court noted that a new impeachment complaint can be filed against her starting February 6, 2026.
The House is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the SC’s ruling. Meanwhile, the Senate is set to discuss the issue on August 6.
Local leaders and legal analysts continue to monitor the developments closely, recognizing the ruling’s potential impact on future impeachment efforts against high-ranking officials.
For more news and updates on impeachment proceedings, visit Filipinokami.com.
