The impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte may be dead in the water—for now.

The Supreme Court has struck down the complaint as unconstitutional, saying it is barred by the one-year rule on the filing of multiple impeachment complaints.

The justices unanimously ruled that the Senate has no jurisdiction over the impeachment complaint seeking Duterte’s removal from the vice presidency for, among others, the alleged misuse of millions of pesos in government funds.

According to former senator Franklin Drilon, the Senate has no option but to comply. “In effect, there’s no complaint that was properly elevated to the Senate,’’ he told CoverStory.ph by phone. “The House of Representatives, on question of fact, failed to observe the one-year rule.”

The Vice President’s allies in the Senate lauded the high court’s ruling that was written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. But it sparked outrage among other lawmakers, civilians and civil society groups, including those that filed impeachment complaints against Duterte in the House.

“With all due respect,” Sen. Risa Hontiveros said in a statement, “the Supreme Court’s sudden stoppage of the impeachment trial against VP Sara Duterte is disappointing.”

Hontiveros said she was puzzled at how the “one year bar rule was violated when there is only one case brought before the Senate.” She cited the tribunal’s decision in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 193459). 

‘Procedurally questionable’

Incoming Mamamayang LP party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, who served as counsel for the group that filed the first impeachment complaint against Duterte, described the ruling as “procedurally questionable.”

She said the high court did not ask the House, as the principal respondent in Duterte’s petition to void the complaint, to file a formal comment under the Rules of Court.

“I respect the Supreme Court. But in a case of this magnitude—transcendental constitutional importance—we must demand clarity, not shortcuts. The public deserves an explanation,” De Lima posted on Facebook.

Said former Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares: “We’re disappointed and frustrated. That case involves a lot of money. We were hoping the court would allow the Senate to hear the complaint.”

Colmenares said he has yet to read the decision but remarked that it raises questions on the definition of the one-year ban. He vowed to support any House move to seek a reconsideration of the ruling, or to file a new complaint next year.

“Why were those three complaints terminated? How can they be terminated?” he said by phone.

The Supreme Court said the first three complaints filed in December last year were deemed dismissed when Congress adjourned on Feb. 5, 2025. Yet on the same day, the House transmitted a fourth complaint to the Senate.

It considered the first three complaints separate from the fourth complaint, and ruled that when the three complaints were dismissed on Feb. 5, no new complaint could be filed until Feb. 6 next year.

The high court said the one-year ban is reckoned “from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable.” 

Drilon said he was not surprised by the tribunal’s decision, and advised the groups of complainants to file their complaints anew in February in compliance with the ruling.  

“Nothing surprises me at my age,” he said. “The Supreme Court said it can be refiled. That’s eight months from now. Let it go through… That’s how the cookie crumbles.” 

Not absolved of charges 

The justices said the tribunal is not absolving Duterte of the charges against her, but served notice that any subsequent complaint may only be filed starting on Feb. 6, 2026.  

“There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time,” they said. “This is what the Rule of Just Law means.  This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.” 

The salient points of the ruling are posted on the Supreme Court’s website.

The Vice President is accused of culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust over her alleged misuse of more than ₱612 million in confidential funds, among others, and her supposed threat to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez assassinated.

The House’s lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial, 4Ps party-list Rep. Marcelino Libanan, said the ruling should prod the chamber “to revisit and reinforce its internal rules and timelines governing impeachment.”

“Clearer procedural safeguards will help ensure that the constitutional mechanisms for accountability are not only respected but are also effective and resilient in the face of political challenges,” Libanan said in a statement.

But he added: “It is important to underscore, however, that the decision rests on procedural grounds and does not touch on the merits of the allegations. Accountability in public service has not been denied—only deferred.”