When Vice President Sara Duterte asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday, February 19, to block the looming impeachment trial against her, she insisted that the House of Representatives’ indictment of her was null to begin with.
Duterte’s argument rests on allegations that the lower chamber violated the “one-year bar” rule of the 1987 Constitution, which states that the House cannot initiate impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
The first impeachment complaint against Duterte was filed on December 1, 2024, with two more petitions filed within the same month. There were only 16 signatories in that complaint, consisting of former elective and appointive officials, members of the academe and the Catholic Church, and civil society leaders.
House rules dictate that the House Secretary General must “immediately” refer the verified impeachment complaint to the Speaker, who shall include it in the order of business in the plenary within 10 session days, per the Constitution.
Secretary General Reginald Velasco, however, did not do that. Even when he admitted on January 10, 2025, that the complaints have been verified and were “ready” for transmittal to Speaker Martin Romualdez, he held on to the petitions.
He said this was to heed some lawmakers’ request to delay the submission of the petitions, as they were mulling over the filing of a fourth impeachment complaint. Velasco supposedly wanted to forward all the petitions at once to Romualdez’s office for consolidation.
To be fair to Velasco, the lack of a time-specific deadline (only the word “immediately” appears in the House rules) creates a gray area that is prone to abuse and political maneuverings. On the flip side, Duterte’s camp argued that “there is nothing in the Constitution or the House rules on impeachment that allows the House of Representatives to withhold the referral of an impeachment complaint.”
Had the three complaints been forwarded to the Speaker’s office ahead of the fourth complaint, the House would have been forced, as required by the Constitution, to refer them to the committee on justice. Once a complaint is referred to the said panel, no more complaints would have been entertained for the next year, as it would have gone against the “one-year bar” rule.
Sara’s argument
The first three complaints never passed through the justice committee because of what Secretary General Velasco did, so these petitions were not considered “initiated.” So why is Duterte invoking the one-year bar rule?
Duterte argued that Velasco did not endorse the complaints to Romualdez to give the House more time to gather signatures in support of Duterte’s impeachment, which finally took place on February 5, the last day of plenary session in the House before it went on a three-month break, and two months after the first complaint against Duterte was filed.
She said Velasco, by not taking action on the first three complaints, “deliberately [froze] the entire initiation and impeachment process,” rendering the one-year bar rule of the Constitution “futile and meaningless.”
The Vice President added that what the House did was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
“With these acts of the Congress, the necessary implication is that the Secretary General can freeze impeachment complaints in perpetuity, and hang them over the head of the impeachable officer for as long as he/she wants, which is not only absurd and ridiculous, but could be used as a tool for harassment,” the petition read.
“Simply put, the act performed by respondent House of Representatives to avoid the application of the one-year bar is the very act that calls for its application,” it added.
VP’s plea, House’s response
Duterte filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, asking magistrates to issue a temporary restraining order that would block a looming impeachment trial against her at the Senate.
She also wants the Court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in her favor after due proceedings, and a final injunction nullifying the fourth impeachment complaint, which was backed by 215 out of 306 House lawmakers.
Duterte is being accused of betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and high crimes for various incidents, particularly on her assassination threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., her alleged misuse of confidential funds, and alleged bribery of government officials.
Various House lawmakers, in response, said Duterte’s filing with the Supreme Court reeks of desperation.
“The Vice President’s move to halt the impeachment trial through the Supreme Court is a clear indication of her refusal to face the charges against her at the appropriate venue. The appropriate venue is the impeachment court not the Supreme Court. By resorting to legal maneuvers, she is reinforcing a troubling pattern of avoiding accountability,” said House Deputy Minority Leader France Castro.
“Just months ago, she declared she welcomed the impeachment complaint. Now, she’s pulling every trick in the book to stop it from moving forward. If she truly had nothing to hide, why the sudden fear?” House Assistant Majority Leader Jude Acidre added.
“Her hypocrisy is staggering.” – Rappler.com