MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc, by a unanimous vote of all those participating, denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives seeking to reverse the Court’s July 25, 2025 decision that declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional.

In a resolution, the Court affirmed that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025 was already barred by Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) of the Constitution. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa took no part in the deliberations, while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.

The Court clarified that the first three impeachment complaints filed under the first mode of initiating impeachment under Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2) were not placed in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.

It explained that “session days” for purposes of Article XI do not refer to legislative session days, but to calendar days in which the House of Representatives holds a session.

Reiterating the ruling in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, the Court further elaborated that an impeachment complaint filed under the first mode is deemed initiated for purposes of the one-year bar when a properly verified and endorsed complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice; when such complaint is not placed in the Order of Business within 10 session days or referred to the Committee on Justice after being placed in the Order of Business within three session days; or when no Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate before the House adjourns sine die, meaning initiation must occur during the term of Congress.

The SC also affirmed the House of Representatives’ power to promulgate its own Rules on Impeachment, but clarified that under the current wording of Section 2 of the House Rules, referral to the Committee on Justice is required even for complaints filed through the second mode under Article XI, Section 3, subsection (4).

Under the existing rules, the House may optionally refer an impeachment complaint already endorsed by at least one-third of its members to the Committee on Justice to verify endorsements, confirm the existence of supporting evidence and distribution of copies to members, and allow consolidation of complaints before transmittal to the Senate.

The Court underscored the distinction between the two modes of initiating impeachment, noting that the first mode under subsections (2) and (3) follows a regular and deliberative process involving committee review, while the second mode under subsection (4) allows a more direct initiation once at least one-third of House members endorse the complaint.

“These provisions reflect a deliberate constitutional design; subsections (2) and (3) provide a structured and committee-directed approach, while subsection (4) allows a streamlined initiation when a sufficient level of consensus already exists,” the Court said.

The SC further affirmed that due process applies to impeachment proceedings, stating that: “The phrase ‘right to life, liberty, or property’ should not be read with undue literalism. It must be accorded reasonable flexibility to achieve its intent of protecting inherent and inalienable rights that could not have been exhaustively articulated at the time of its framing. The due process clause embodies the fundamental constitutional commitment to reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. It envisions that we cannot have a true democratic and republican/representative state that is arbitrary and unfair.”

However, the Court said due process in impeachment is sui generis, with full trial conducted in the Senate. For the second mode of initiating impeachment, it requires that the grounds invoked are those in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution; that procedures follow the House Rules on Impeachment promulgated prior to filing; and that all endorsing members are given copies of the complaint and supporting evidence.

The Court also noted that transmittal of Articles of Impeachment must be done in a plenary session of the House, while transmittal to the Senate requires only a vote or proof of endorsement by one-third of House members, depending on the mode used.

The SC ruled that the operative fact doctrine cannot be invoked by a party directly responsible for an unconstitutional act, and thus does not apply in this case.

It also took note of motions for intervention and pleadings filed by individuals who were not parties to the case.

The resolution is immediately executory upon digital service on all parties, and no further pleadings will be allowed.