The Supreme Court has upheld its ruling voiding the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, bringing the impeachment effort to a final and irreversible close.
In a decision announced Thursday, the Court en banc denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives. The motion sought to overturn the Court’s earlier ruling that declared the impeachment articles unconstitutional. Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting said the vote was unanimous, leaving no remaining legal avenue to challenge the decision.
The ruling reaffirms the Court’s finding that the impeachment proceedings violated the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution. This provision bars the initiation of more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a one-year period. The Court ruled that this constitutional safeguard had been breached, rendering the impeachment process invalid from the outset.
Because of this violation, the Supreme Court held that the Senate never acquired jurisdiction over the impeachment case, despite the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment. Without jurisdiction, the proceedings could not legally move forward.
The impeachment effort stemmed from multiple complaints filed and acted upon within the same period, which the Court treated as triggering the constitutional one-year prohibition. In its ruling, the Court emphasized that constitutional limits apply at all stages of the impeachment process and cannot be bypassed through procedural sequencing.
Following the initial decision, the House argued that the timing and handling of the complaints did not amount to a violation of the one-year rule. The Court rejected this argument, maintaining that the constitutional bar had already taken effect.
With the denial issued with finality, the impeachment case against the Vice President is conclusively closed. The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s authority to enforce constitutional boundaries on impeachment and clarifies that strict adherence to procedural limits is decisive in determining whether such cases may proceed.
