28-07-2025
SC ruling may lead to sham impeachment complaints, legal experts warn
Legal experts warn that the Supreme Court ruling that redefines when an impeachment proceeding is considered 'initiated' could be weaponized through the filing of sham complaints to block legitimate attempts at accountability.
Last week, the Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte "unconstitutional," saying their filing violated Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which states that "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."
Four impeachment complaints had been filed in the House. The first three impeachment complaints were filed in December 2024, and were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025, when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint.
According to a 24 Oras report by Joseph Morong, in its decision the Supreme Court held that the unacted-on complaints, which were not referred to the House Committee on Justice, already marked the start of impeachment proceedings.
According to the Supreme Court, the fourth complaint, which was adopted and transmitted to the Senate on the same day, therefore violated the one-year bar rule.
Lawyer Rene Sarmiento, a framer of the 1987 Constitution, criticized the Court's reversal of its previous ruling that an impeachment complaint is only considered initiated once it is referred to the House Committee on Justice.
Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio also called out the decision:
"The people did not know that there was this requirement because there was no requirement like this. You cannot make it retroactive, it should be prospective—'yun ang doctrine of operative fact. If there is a new requirement, you cannot say, 'Uy, bakit hindi mo sinunod ito?' Eh paano mo isunod na wala nga 'yun, it did not exist at the time."
(You cannot say, 'Why didn't you follow this rule?' You can't hold people accountable for a rule that didn't exist when the action happened.)
Critics also slammed the part of the decision that stated Duterte was denied due process, and laid out new procedural requirements that had not been previously imposed.
'Ang sabi ngayon ng Supreme Court, it cannot be an ex parte hearing, it has to be an actual hearing and that will require time. Kapos ka sa oras and that was never intended and nobody knew that there was such a requirement,' Carpio said.
(The Supreme Court now says it can't be an ex parte hearing—it needs a full hearing, which takes time. That was never required before.)
UP Law Assistant Professor Paolo Tamase backed these concerns, pointing out that even the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona proceeded without such requirements.
"Hindi rin naman nagkaroon ng hearing doon at hindi rin naman kinwestiyon 'yun… Pareho lang circumstances niya, kaya mahirap paliwanagan kung bakit iba yung mga patakaran ngayon," he said.
(There was no hearing then, and no one questioned it. The circumstances are the same, so it's hard to explain why the rules are suddenly different.)
The legal group 1Sambayan also challenged the Court's timeline, arguing that House records show the fourth complaint was acted on and adopted first, before the earlier three were archived. Thus, they claim the one-year bar should not apply to it.
"If anything, ang dapat tamaan ng one-year bar rule ay 'yung tatlo na inihain na nauna supposedly at hindi 'yung finile ng House of Representatives," Tamase said.
(If anything, the one-year bar should apply to the earlier three, not the one officially filed and adopted by the House.)
The House of Representatives has announced it will appeal the Supreme Court's ruling, citing procedural and factual errors.
Tamase warned that the ruling might be abused:
"Seryoso siya na problema dito sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Maghahain siya ng mga sham complaints upang magsimula 'yung one-year bar rule. Kung hindi aksyunan ng House kasi clear naman na sham 'yung complaint, parang napagdesisyunan na rin at nagsisimula na 'yung one-year bar rule."
(This is a serious problem with the Court's decision. Anyone can file sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. Even if the House doesn't act because it's clearly a sham, the clock starts running anyway.)
In response, the Supreme Court clarified in its decision that baseless or unendorsed complaints should be immediately dismissed and would not trigger the one-year ban.
"Obviously, sham complaints, for example, those that are not verified, should be dismissed immediately, even if endorsed. Complaints that are not properly endorsed by a member of the House of Representatives within a reasonable period should also be dismissed. These types of dismissals will not trigger the one-year ban,' it said. — Sherylin Untalan/BM, GMA Integrated News
