By Aaron Gabriel R. Gomez
Art by Andrea Formalejo
Embedded within a 97-page Supreme Court (SC) ruling lies a judicial precedent that has aggravated both the plenary halls of the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate.
Two months have passed, yet several sentiments have expressed both praise and dismay for the ruling vis-a-vis the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte. Facing four impeachment complaints on several grounds such as graft and corruption, incitement to insurrection, betrayal of public trust, and grave abuse of discretionary powers, the Second-in-Command has been caught as a primary proponent in a seemingly stark display of force between the upper and lower houses of the Philippine Congress.
What happened?
Echoing the findings of the Center for Media Responsibility & Responsibility, Vice President Duterte signifies the very first instance that the country’s second highest seat has been involved in an impeachment case. As both the House and the Senate have painstakingly drawn out the impeachment process, the SC has made it known that it will not take a backseat in this game of judicial tug-of-war.
The lengthy events that led to the SC ruling behind Duterte’s impeachment case were a drawn out war of attrition. Initial proceedings were held as far back as December 2024, where the first three impeachment complaints regarding her alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings of suspected drug users and pushers, as well as a lack of stance in the midst of Chinese expansionism in the West Philippine Sea.
Tensions reached a boiling point in February 2025 when 215 members of the House signed a fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte on grounds of corruption and incitement to insurrection and public disorder — right after the former had been recorded in a sensationalist newsbite with an explicit threat of assassinating President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos should something detrimental would happen to the Vice President.
Breaching above the minimum signatory requirement — as ordained within the 1987 Constitution — the impeachment complaint was then considered as the formal Articles of Impeachment held against Duterte and was immediately transmitted to the Senate after the plenary vote.
A fatal flaw
The fate of the country’s Veep hinged on the fact as to whether the Articles of Impeachment were to be tackled immediately. Throughout a protracted political process drawn over several months, the public watched in suspense as the country’s legislature looked poised to draw arms, brandishing lances at each other in a congressional jousting match brought by current circumstances.
In an (un)expected turn of events, various aspects of the trial underwent multiple delays. From events such as the recent midterm elections holding back the Senate’s function as an impeachment court, to numerous counterarguments holding that constitutional provisions mandating the upper house to prioritize the hearings had resulted in an impeded impeachment case that stretched out for months. It was only on July 25 when the SC unanimously declared the fourth impeachment complaint unconstitutional and void ab initio due to the now-infamous “one-year bar rule” being constituted for the first three impeachment cases, resulting in the fourth one being invalid.
The Court had ruled that there was a difference between the first three complaints, and that of the fourth one — the former had been filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which allows citizens to file any verified complaint under the endorsement of a member of the House. Conversely, the fourth complaint was filed under Article IX, Section 3(4) of the same law, stating that a verified complaint that garnered at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and that Senate trials shall proceed forthwith.
Reading between the lines
The SC’s decision to nullify the case was met with massive scrutiny from the masses, as well as legal pundits throughout the country. A key point of contention came from Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the ponente who wrote the ruling. He cited a media report from ABS-CBN as a primary source for the case, substituting official congressional records.
Former Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio expressed his disparagement with this statement, citing that the Court could have easily verified the facts from official records instead of basing them off a news report. While the official records reported that the minimum vote requirement to initiate an impeachment complaint was seen in the records, news outlets have stated the Articles of Impeachment were allegedly passed off to the Senate without a plenary vote — a statement that was already proven to be false.
This sets a dangerous precedent: Previous jurisprudence, such as Lagman v. Pimentel III (G.R. No. 235935) has already asserted that the Court, through its power of judicial review, will rely on congressional records as significant proof. However, the SC opted to overrule this exercise of judicial power in favor of a secondary source that places its credibility at risk.
Statutory provisions already exist in reference to this. Rule 129, Section 1 of the Rules of Court mandates that the courts shall take judicial notice of the official acts of the three branches of government in the country — in spite of the presence of congressional records of the impeachment proceedings. For legal practitioners and future members of the profession, having the country’s highest court purportedly disregard the presence of certified documents is not a simple lapse in judgment — it reshapes the rules of impeachment entirely and risks loss of confidence not just in the ruling, but in the very foundations of the judicial branch as well.
A watchful gaze
With a citizenry already watching with a weary stare at the SC and its ruling in the impeachment case, the High Court has adamantly stated that the nullification of such complaints does not automatically absolve the Vice President from any charges.
However, there remains significant reason for why discussions regarding these impeachment proceedings are tantamount to the rule of law. While it can be argued as a just cause or the proper procedure of due process, these statements remain meek and futile when such ruling on a heavily contested case comes from unverified reports rather than legitimate congressional records.
As of the time of writing, silence continues to permeate the halls of the Court regarding its decision. And as long as it refuses to offer a statement as to why it chose to utilize secondary sources rather than official state documents, questions regarding the legitimacy of the ruling will remain. With an angry citizenry desperate for transparency, the Court can uphold its constitutional mandate of proper judicial review all it wants, but referring to unverified reports only seeks to add further uncertainty regarding the strength of their decision on the impeachment case — a vital outcome that should leave no stone unturned.
References:
Inquirer.net. “SC: ‘Impeach Raps’ Broke 1-Yr Ban; No Due Process.” Inquirer, July 26, 2025. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2087273/sc-impeach-raps-broke-1-yr-ban-no-due-process.
Rappler. “Sara Duterte Impeachment: Implications of Supreme Court Decision.” Rappler, July 27, 2025. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/sara-duterte-impeachment-implications-supreme-court-decision/.
Inquirer.net. “SC Ruling on Sara Duterte Questioned over Reliance on News Reports.” Inquirer, August 26, 2025. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2100379/sc-ruling-on-sara-duterte-questioned-over-reliance-on-news-reports.
Supreme Court of the Philippines. Sara Z. Duterte, in Her Capacity as the Vice President of the Philippines, vs. House of Representatives Represented by Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez et al.; Atty. Israelito P. Torreon, etc. (G.R. Nos. 278353–278359). July 25, 2025. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-sara-z-duterte-in-her-capacity-as-the-vice-president-of-the-philippines-vs-house-of-representatives-represented-by-ferdinand-martin-g-romualdez-et-al-atty-israelito-p-torreon-e/.
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. “Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Trial Delayed by Design.” CMFR-Phil, n.d. https://cmfr-phil.org/in-context/for-the-record-in-context/sara-dutertes-impeachment-trial-delayed-by-design/.
Inquirer.net. “Explainer: The Senate Archive of Sara Duterte’s Case.” Inquirer, n.d. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2094545/explainer-the-senate-archive-of-sara-dutertes-case