MANILA — A lawyers’ group has expressed “grave concern” over the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision nullifying the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, warning that the ruling carries serious consequences for accountability and the system of constitutional checks and balances.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), a prominent legal advocacy group, issued a strongly worded statement on Friday, arguing that the Court’s interpretation effectively rewrites the rules of impeachment laid out in the 1987 Constitution.

At the heart of the controversy is the Court’s assertion that four previously filed impeachment complaints against Duterte had already triggered the constitutional one-year bar on new complaints — even though three of those were never formally referred to the House Committee on Justice.

“The Supreme Court has conjured a bar from proceedings that never began,” the NUPL said, calling the ruling a “misreading” of the constitutional process.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

According to Article XI, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution, impeachment can be initiated in two ways: by referral of a verified complaint to the House Committee on Justice, or by direct filing from at least one-third of House members — in which case the complaint automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment and is sent to the Senate for trial.

In February 2025, over one-third of House members signed and transmitted a fourth complaint against Duterte to the Senate just before Congress adjourned. Lawyers argue this met all constitutional requirements under Section 3(4), and thus constituted valid initiation.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the earlier, unacted complaints — despite not being referred to committee — were “deemed dismissed” when the 19th Congress concluded, thereby triggering the one-year bar on filing additional complaints.

The NUPL rejected this reasoning, stating that “initiation” requires both filing and formal referral.

“To treat unacted, unreferred complaints as having been ‘initiated and dismissed’ is to grant legal effect to what the Constitution does not recognize,” the group warned.

A Departure from Precedent

The group also criticized the Court for departing from prior jurisprudence. In the 2003 landmark case Francisco v. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court ruled that impeachment complaints are only considered initiated once referred to the appropriate committee — an interpretation NUPL maintains is in line with the Constitution’s plain meaning and intent.

They further opposed the Court’s claim that Vice President Duterte was denied due process due to the lack of opportunity to respond before the complaint was transmitted to the Senate.

“Nowhere in the Constitution is this required,” the NUPL emphasized, citing Section 3(4), which allows direct impeachment by one-third of House members.

“The opportunity to respond is preserved during trial — before the Senate acting as an impeachment court.”

While respecting the Court’s constitutional authority to interpret the law, the group warned that the decision risks encroaching on Congress’s internal processes — a co-equal branch of government.

NUPL ended its statement with a stark reminder of what’s at stake:

“The Constitution was never intended to insulate the powerful from consequence. When constitutional powers are subordinated to procedural interpretations that strain the Charter’s plain meaning, it is not merely institutional balance that suffers — it is the public’s right to demand responsibility from those who wield power in their name.”

📷 Inday Sara Duterte FB