Photo credit: Supreme Court of the Philippines

The Supreme Court has delivered a final verdict on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, firmly rejecting the House of Representatives’ motion for reconsideration. The High Court upheld its previous ruling that the impeachment articles were unconstitutional and that the Senate never had jurisdiction to hear the case.

SC Spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting confirmed that the decision is final, effectively closing one of the most closely watched political battles in recent years.

In its ruling, the Court stood by its July 25, 2025 decision, emphasizing that the fourth impeachment complaint, transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025, was barred by the Constitution’s one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3 (5). Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa did not participate in the deliberations, while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.

The Supreme Court also clarified why the impeachment did not proceed. The first three complaints, filed under the House’s standard process, were not considered properly initiated because they were not included in the House’s Order of Business within the required ten session days. The Court noted that “session days” mean actual calendar days when the House is in session, not just legislative session days.

The Court reaffirmed its interpretation of when an impeachment complaint is considered “initiated” for purposes of the one-year bar, including cases where a complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice but not acted upon within constitutional deadlines or when articles of impeachment are not transmitted to the Senate before Congress adjourns sine die.

While recognizing the House’s authority to set its own impeachment rules, the Court emphasized that complaints filed under the “second mode,” which requires support from at least one-third of House members, can only be referred to the Committee for limited purposes such as verification, evidence confirmation, and consolidation of complaints. The justices highlighted the key difference between the two modes: the first relies on deliberation and committee processes, while the second allows for more direct initiation once sufficient support exists.

Due process, the Court stressed, remains an essential part of impeachment, though it operates uniquely in this context. “The phrase ‘right to life, liberty, or property’ should not be read with undue literalism. It must be accorded reasonable flexibility to achieve its intent of protecting inherent and inalienable rights that could not have been exhaustively articulated at the time of its framing. The due process clause embodies the fundamental constitutional commitment to reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. It envisions that we cannot have a true democratic and republican/representative state that is arbitrary and unfair,” the Court said.

However, full trial-level due process happens at the Senate, while the House’s role, especially under the second mode, is limited to following constitutional grounds, existing impeachment rules, and proper distribution of the complaint and evidence.

The Court also rejected arguments invoking the operative fact doctrine and dismissed various motions for intervention filed by non-parties. The ruling is immediately executory upon digital service to all parties, and the Supreme Court made it clear that no further pleadings will be entertained.