SC - Articles of Impeachment vs. VP Sara Duterte are unconstitutional | GMA Integrated News

Summary

On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte are unconstitutional, citing the one-year rule under the Constitution and violations of due process. The Court emphasized that no new impeachment proceedings can be initiated before February 6, 2026. While not absolving Duterte from the charges, the Court underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures, such as providing sufficient evidence and allowing the respondent an opportunity to be heard. This landmark decision highlights the balance between legal processes and political actions, ensuring fairness in the impeachment process.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Supreme Court declared the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional due to the one-year rule under Article 11, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution.
• 😀 The decision emphasized that impeachment proceedings cannot be initiated against the same official more than once within one year after an impeachment complaint is dismissed or becomes unviable.
• 😀 The court's ruling clarified that while impeachment has political aspects, it is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure, subject to judicial review.
• 😀 The court highlighted that the impeachment process must follow due process and apply the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, especially regarding the right to a speedy disposition of cases.
• 😀 Although Vice President Duterte is not absolved from charges, any new impeachment complaints against her cannot be filed until February 6, 2026.
• 😀 The court ruled that the House of Representatives must act on impeachment complaints within 10 session days, emphasizing that a session day is not equivalent to a calendar day.
• 😀 The ruling specified that evidence must be provided alongside impeachment articles, and the evidence should be sufficient to support the charges.
• 😀 Impeachment respondents must have the opportunity to be heard and respond to the charges, ensuring due process is followed before the case is transmitted to the Senate.
• 😀 The decision reiterated that impeachment complaints must be filed by the House, not just one-third of its members, and there must be deliberations before any action is taken.
• 😀 The Supreme Court reminded that impeachment must be based on impeachable acts committed in the current term and must be sufficiently grave to justify removal from office or disqualification.

Q & A

What was the Supreme Court's ruling on the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte?

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte were unconstitutional. This decision was based on two main reasons: the violation of the one-year rule under the Constitution and due process concerns.

What is the one-year rule mentioned in the Court's decision?

The one-year rule, found in Article 11, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, prohibits initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a year. Since the first three complaints were dismissed or archived before February 2025, no new complaints could be filed until February 6, 2026.

How does the Supreme Court interpret due process in impeachment proceedings?

The Court emphasized that due process applies to impeachment proceedings, requiring that the respondent be provided with evidence, a chance to respond to the charges, and that the impeachment complaint be properly deliberated upon before it is transmitted to the Senate.

What were the issues with the first three impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Duterte?

The first three complaints were not acted upon by the House of Representatives, leading to their dismissal or termination. They were archived and deemed not viable by February 5, 2025, preventing any new complaints from being initiated before February 6, 2026.

What does the Court say about the House of Representatives' role in impeachment complaints?

The Court stated that the House of Representatives must adhere to a clear process in handling impeachment complaints, including immediately placing a verified complaint in the order of business within 10 session days and referring the matter to the proper committee within three session days. The House must also ensure reasonable time for deliberation on impeachment complaints.

What are the key requirements for due process in the impeachment process, according to the Court?

The Court outlined several key due process requirements: providing evidence with the impeachment articles, allowing the respondent to be heard, giving the House members adequate time to deliberate, and ensuring that charges are based on impeachable acts committed during the current term.

Why did the Supreme Court emphasize the importance of the due process in impeachment proceedings?

The Court emphasized due process to ensure fairness and the protection of constitutional rights. It argued that, regardless of political pressure, impeachment must follow the established legal process to prevent injustices and uphold the rule of law.

What impact does the Court's ruling have on future impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte?

The ruling means that no new impeachment complaints can be filed against Vice President Duterte until February 6, 2026, in accordance with the one-year rule. Future complaints must adhere to the Court's guidelines on due process and the constitutional timelines.

What does the Court's ruling suggest about the relationship between law and politics in impeachment cases?

The Court's ruling highlights that while impeachment has political characteristics, it is fundamentally a legal process. The Court insists that the rule of law, fairness, and due process must take precedence over political motivations or the desires of those in power.

How does the Supreme Court's ruling address the concerns of past impeachment proceedings?

The Court acknowledged that past political conflicts and desires for expediency in impeachment processes had led to legal missteps. It warned against compromising fairness for political convenience, stressing that the law should not be swayed by political pressures and that due process should be preserved to prevent future injustices.