What the SC ruling clearly tells the public: (1) No impeachment against VP until after Feb. 5, 2026. (2) It has not absolved Sara Duterte of wrongdoing. (3) It instructs the House of Representatives on constitutional procedure and requirements of due process.
Clash of motives: accountability of impeachable officials vs. personal/party interest
The Marcoses would want Sara Duterte convicted and removed from 2028 race and the Duterte brand tarnished, if not destroyed, at the impeachment trial. The Dutertes would want to take down Marcos and his surrogate/s for the Davao clan’s survival and prosperity.
Public interest demands that some high officials like the VP be made to account for wrongdoing while in office.
The two interests clash but the second is supposed to outweigh the other. Alas, that is sadly not so among people whose career or livelihood depends on the politician and among rabid adorers and supporters of the political leader.
Supreme Court ruling rests mostly on meaning of ‘initiating’ complaint
In 2003 Francisco vs. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that an impeachment is deemed “initiated” only when it is referred to the House committee on justice.
In Vice President Sara Duterte’s petition against Senate, the SC ruled Friday, July 25, 2025, that it is considered initiated when it is “dismissed or no longer viable.”
“UNFAIR” TO THE HOUSE. This is unfair to the House of Representatives, which relied in good faith on the earlier SC decision, former associate justice Adolf Azcuna said.
Azcuna and ex-chief justice Panganiban said the ruling on Duterte’s petition “could distort constitutional safeguards and weaken accountability mechanisms.”
Other criticisms point out that House records show that the fourth complaint was filed and acted upon befoe the dismissal of the complaints and before the House adjourned on Feb. 5.
Two reasons the Supreme Court ruled that impeachment complaint against VP Sara Duterte is unconstitutional:
[1] Barred by one-year rule under article XI, section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution.
[2] Violates the right to due process. Draft and evidence, says the Supreme Court in ruling on petition of VP Duterte against Senate, were not given to Sara. Articles were “constitutionally infirm and null and void.”