IMPEACHMENT CONTROL
How the Supreme Court Ruled on the Motion for Reconsideration in the Sara Duterte Impeachment Case
By: Anthony Ludalvi Vista
The impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte reached the Supreme Court because of serious questions about how Congress handled the process. Several impeachment complaints were filed against her, but the way these complaints were dealt with raised constitutional concerns. When the Court stopped the impeachment, several groups asked it to reverse that decision. The Court refused, and in doing so, explained how impeachment must be carried out under the Constitution and where Congress must stop.
What follows are the main issues raised by those asking the Court to reconsider, and how the Court answered each one, explained in simple and direct terms.
Issue 1: Did the Constitution already block the fourth impeachment complaint?
The Constitution clearly says that a public official cannot be impeached more than once within one year. Those who challenged the Court’s ruling argued that this rule should not yet apply. According to them, the first three impeachment complaints should not be counted because Congress never fully acted on them. There were no hearings, no committee reports, and no votes. Because of this, they claimed those complaints were legally insignificant and should not trigger the one-year ban.
Ruling of the Court
The Court rejected this argument. It ruled that the one-year ban had already applied, which meant the fourth impeachment complaint was not allowed under the Constitution. The Court explained this in practical terms. If Congress could avoid the one-year ban simply by ignoring impeachment complaints, then the rule would lose its purpose. Congress could delay action until it suited its political timing and then claim the constitutional limit did not apply. The Constitution does not allow this kind of maneuvering. Once a proper impeachment complaint is filed and endorsed, the constitutional clock starts running, whether Congress chooses to act or not.
Issue 2: Can doing nothing still have legal consequences?
The movants argued that only active steps—such as hearings or committee action—should matter. In their view, inaction, delay, or archiving of impeachment complaints should have no legal effect.
Ruling of the Court
The Court rejected this position. It explained that inaction is still a choice, and choices made by Congress can affect constitutional rights and processes. Allowing inaction to escape consequences would give Congress too much control over impeachment rules and allow it to bypass constitutional limits. Put simply, the Constitution cannot be defeated by pretending nothing happened. The Court ruled that deliberate delay or archiving still counts, because otherwise the one-year ban would be easy to defeat.
Issue 3: Did the Supreme Court interfere with Congress’s exclusive power to impeach?
Those asking for reconsideration argued that impeachment is a political matter and that courts should not interfere at all. According to them, Congress alone controls impeachment, and judicial review is an intrusion into legislative power.
Ruling of the Court
The Court clarified that while Congress does have the exclusive power to impeach, that power is not unlimited. Impeachment is political because it involves elected officials, but it is also legal and constitutional because it must follow rules written in the Constitution. When Congress violates those constitutional limits, the courts have a duty to step in. The Court stressed that it was not deciding who should be removed from office. It was only deciding whether the Constitution had been followed.
Issue 4: Does fairness matter at the start of impeachment?
Another argument raised was that fairness and due process apply only during the Senate trial, not during the filing and endorsement of impeachment complaints.
Ruling of the Court
The Court disagreed. It explained that impeachment has serious consequences from the moment it begins. Even before trial, impeachment can trigger the one-year ban, damage reputations, and place an official under constitutional threat. Because of these effects, the process cannot be careless or arbitrary at the start. At the same time, the Court clarified that this does not mean a full trial happens immediately. Full hearings and defenses take place later in the Senate. What is required at the beginning is basic fairness, not courtroom procedures.
Issue 5: Is getting one-third of signatures enough, even without evidence?
The movants argued that once one-third of House members sign an impeachment complaint, it should automatically move forward, regardless of whether the endorsing members reviewed the evidence.
Ruling of the Court
The Court rejected this idea. It explained that a signature has meaning only if the person signing understands what is being supported. Members must have actually seen and considered the evidence behind the charges. Without this, impeachment becomes a numbers game rather than a serious accountability process. The Constitution never intended impeachment to be based on popularity or pressure alone. In simple terms, impeachment is about responsibility, not just counting hands.
Issue 6: Why did the Court void the complaint entirely instead of fixing it?
Some argued that even if there were mistakes, the impeachment could have been paused, corrected, or cured instead of being struck down.
Ruling of the Court
The Court ruled that the fourth impeachment complaint was invalid from the very beginning. Because it was filed in violation of the Constitution, there was nothing to fix. A process that the Constitution forbids cannot be repaired later, no matter how much political support it has.
Issue 7: Should this ruling apply only to future impeachments?
The movants argued that even if the Court’s interpretation was correct, it should apply only in the future so that this impeachment could continue.
Ruling of the Court
The Court refused. It explained that the rules it applied were already part of existing law. Congress was not caught by surprise. Ignoring clear constitutional deadlines cannot be excused as good faith. Prospective rulings exist to prevent unfairness, not to reward constitutional shortcuts.
****
30 January 2026
SUPREME COURT: IMPEACHMENT HINDI DAPAT ABUSUHIN
Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na ang impeachment ay hindi dapat abusuhin bilang kasangkapan upang panatilihin ang paghahari ng kasakiman o upang ipahiya at pigilan ang mga opisyal ng gobyerno na gampanan ang kanilang konstitusyunal na tungkulin.
Ito ang iginiit ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman sa desisyong isinulat ni Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, kasabay ng pagpapatibay sa naunang ruling na labag sa Konstitusyon ang Articles of Impeachment laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte.
Sa kanyang ponencia, nilinaw ni Leonen na ang impeachment ay isang mekanismong pang-pananagutan—hindi sandatang pampulitika. Aniya, dahil sa malalawak na epekto nito sa mga institusyong demokratiko at sa tiwala ng publiko, dapat itong isagawa nang may konsiyensya, maingat, at may bigat.
“Impeachment should never be abused to maintain the hegemonic dominance of greed by shaming those who occupy high government positions into preventing them from doing what they were sworn to do.”
( “Hindi kailanman dapat abusuhin ang impeachment upang mapanatili ang hegemonikong dominasyon ng kasakiman sa pamamagitan ng pamamahiya sa mga nasa mataas na posisyon sa gobyerno at hadlangan silang gawin ang kanilang sinumpaang tungkulin.”)
“This is why impeachment has been designed so that it is not merely a political process initiated by mere allegations or by perceived public acclaim shaped by the propagandistic effect of timed press releases or irresponsible viral posts on social media.”
( “Ito ang dahilan kung bakit idinisenyo ang impeachment upang hindi ito maging simpleng prosesong pampulitika na sinisimulan lamang batay sa paratang, o sa inaakalang pagsang-ayon ng publiko na hinuhubog ng propagandistikong epekto ng mga sinadyang press release o mga iresponsableng viral post sa social media.”)
Binibigyang-diin ng Korte na ang impeachment ay hindi dapat idaan sa ingay o presyur ng opinyon, kundi sa maingat na proseso na umaayon sa Konstitusyon—isang paalala na ang pananagutan ay dapat makatarungan, makatuwiran, at hindi arbitraryo.
#marcos #duterte #VPSaraDuterte #DavaoCity #AngBalitaNgayonFB
