Palace defers to Congress, judiciary on impeachment process

By Ruth Abbey Gita-Carlos and Benjamin Pulta, Philippine News Agency

Citing Rule 18 of the Senate’s impeachment rules, he said the court remains in the preliminary stage where deliberations on legal interpretations are expected. (File Photo: Senate of the Philippines/Facebook)

MANILA – Malacañang on Friday said it would let Congress and the judiciary exercise their independence in fulfilling their constitutional mandates, including the handling of the impeachment process.

This, after the Supreme Court (SC), in a unanimous decision, declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional.

In a statement, Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said Malacañang has yet to review the high court’s decision.

Castro, nevertheless, called on the public to “respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions.”

“The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates,” she said.

In declaring the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional, the high court also ruled that the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.

The SC en banc said the impeachment complaint “is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution” and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

However, the Court said “it is not absolving” Duterte from any of the charges against her.

“But any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026,” the SC said.

The case stemmed from four impeachment complaints against Duterte.

The first three were filed before the House of Representatives (HOR) by private individuals and different groups on Dec. 2, 4, and 19, 2024.

A fourth complaint was lodged by a resolution approved by more than one third of the HOR members of the 19th Congress on Feb. 5, 2025, which was transmitted as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on the same day.

This was followed by two petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenging its constitutionality.

The Court said that while it does not determine whether an impeachable officer may be removed or disqualified from political office, it emphasized that “it has the duty to construe the process mandated in the Constitution.”

In declaring that the Articles of Impeachment were barred by the one-year rule, the Court differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth complaint.

The first three, it said, were filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution, which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with an endorsement by any HOR member.

The fourth one was through Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of members of the House of Representatives.

The Court took note that the House in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered “terminated or dismissed” upon the adjournment of the House.

Of the 15 justices, Associate Justices Benjamin Caguioa and Filomena Singh took no part in the proceedings.

Caguioa inhibited himself, citing being related to one of the party’s counsels, while Singh is on official leave.