The Senate moved to return the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives due to allegations that the House of Representatives violated the Constitution when it impeached the Philippines’ second top official.
The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, asked the House to certify that its impeachment proceedings were in compliance with the 1987 charter, contrary to the accusations of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who raised the motion that was eventually approved in a vote of 18 to 5.
The claim of Dela Rosa echoed arguments presented by the Vice President in her petition filed with the Supreme Court in February in which she asked magistrates to stop her upcoming trial.
Does her argument actually have merit?
Sara’s point
Duterte’s case is anchored on the provision in the Constitution that states: “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
In legal circles, this is called the one-year-bar rule.
Three impeachment complaints — which Rappler’s sources had said were too weak on their own to withstand scrutiny — were filed in a span of three weeks in December 2024, but House Secretary General Reginald Velasco sat on the petitions and did not refer them to Speaker Martin Romualdez.
That’s even though the 1987 Constitution states that a verified impeachment complaint filed with the House shall be included in the order of business —by the Speaker — within 10 session days.
In February, it was the fourth complaint — believed to be a consolidation of the first three petitions and the one that secured the support of more than two-thirds of the House — that hurdled the chamber and was transmitted to the Senate.
Duterte believes the act of delaying the referral of the petitions itself already constitutes an initial action on the complaints, triggering the impeachment process. Therefore, the fourth complaint violated the constitutional one-year-bar rule, according to the Vice President.
The government’s defense
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as lawyer of the government, was tasked to defend the House of Representatives, which is the respondent in the case.
In its comment filed with the Supreme Court on March 10, it said Duterte’s theory is flawed.
The OSG said that the House has the power to introduce a step between receipt of impeachment complaints and the running of the 10-session-day timer stipulated in the Constitution.
That step is the referral of the complaint by the House Secretary General to the Speaker. It does not have a definite deadline; the House’s rules handbook only says it must be done “immediately.”
In effect, the Secretary General can let the impeachment complaints languish in his desk so the Speaker won’t receive it, and won’t be constitutionally obliged to introduce the complaint in the plenary.
But the government justified this step introduced by the House, saying that the one-year-bar rule could be abused if lawmakers suspiciously endorse weak impeachment complaints, knowing it would be easily dismissed — ultimately shielding the impeachable official.
During the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, impeachment filers in the House would try to beat each other to the punch because of the one-year-bar rule. One complainant, lawyer Oliver Lozano, also once faced allegations that he colluded with Arroyo by filing a “sham” impeachment complaint intended to undermine the opposition’s own effort.
“The Constitution could not have intended a state of affairs where any complaint, no matter how frivolous, absurd, unverified, or dubiously endorsed would, by reason of the periods under Article XI, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution, make its way to the proper committee, initiating impeachment proceedings and triggering the one-year bar,” the OSG’s reply read.
“If that were so, it would be easy for unscrupulous government officials to escape impeachment proceedings by having weak and arbitrary impeachment complaints lodged against themselves, confident that these would always be referred to the committee of justice and thereafter fail,” it added.
The OSG also said that the House has constitutional authority to set its own rules on impeachment proceedings.
Article 11, Section 3 (8) of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.”
Delay not an act of initiation of complaint
It’s already established in the landmark Supreme Court case Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives in 2003 that an impeachment case is only initiated once it reaches the justice committee.
The OSG pointed out that the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte were not referred to the justice committee, so those did not trigger the “initiation” of the impeachment proceeding.
“It is thus incongruous to insist on the effectivity of the one-year bar despite the absence of an impeachment complaint being initiated and even before reaching the stage in the proceedings where the would-be impeached official is required to do anything,” the reply read.
“Assuming arguendo that some error attended the House’s treatment of the first three complaints, this cannot operate to nullify or obstruct the proceedings stemming from the fourth impeachment complaint. The fourth impeachment complaint is independent of the first three complaints,” it added.
The OSG also argued that impeachment is a political exercise that is beyond the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.
Duterte’s petition was filed on February 19, and the House and the Senate were asked to comment on it on February 25. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter four months later. – Rappler.com