For the Supreme Court, time is of
the essence on impeachment.
This is obvious from how the justices
nullified last year's impeachment complaint
against Vice President Sara Duterte, and how they argued that the
House of Representatives failed to act on time to ensure that the
impeachment was successful.
The key point of contention was the term "initiated." Under the
Constitution, no impeachment proceedings can be “initiated” against a
public official “more than once” in one year. Since 2003, there only
used to be a single way to read that provision. The court, in its
latest ruling, provided two new ways to do so.
Let's first look at the original reading.
Under a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, the impeachment is only deemed
initiated if:
by a citizen
and/or a House member
in the order of business by the House
by a citizen
and/or a House member
in the order of business by the House
The original reading prescribes that these three steps —
filed/endorsed, calendared and referred to a House committee — be all
fulfilled for an impeachment to actually be initiated.
In its January 2026 ruling however, the Supreme Court said a complaint
is also
initiated when:
filed and endorsed but
not calendared within 10
session days and
not
referred 3 days thereafter
or...
it is not transmitted to the
Senate for trial before Congress adjourned sine die.
filed and endorsed but
not calendared within 10
session days and
not referred 3 days thereafter
or...
it is not transmitted to the
Senate for trial before Congress adjourned sine die.
The court essentially lowered the bar to trigger the initiation of an
impeachment proceeding. It removed the option for the House of
Representatives to delay or disregard a duly filed and endorsed
impeachment without the risk of triggering the one-year impeachment
ban.
Under the Constitution, there are two ways an impeachment can be filed
at the House of Representatives. Observers colloquially call them the
“long” and “fast track” methods. Under the long method, a complaint
undergoes an approval process like a bill: the complaint is filed,
endorsed, referred to and deliberated on by a House committee, and
should secure approval from a third of the House membership.
The “fast track” method, meanwhile, cuts the process if the complaint
secures the approval of at least a third of the House upon filing.
When that happens, the court said the impeachment complaint does not
need to be calendared and referred, and immediately goes straight to
the Senate for trial.
How an impeachment complaint should go through the House
Impeachment complaint filed and endorsed
Impeachment resolution approved by 1/3 of House members
The complaint is calendared in House business
The Supreme Court said the House can course its resolution
through the committee, but it is not required to do so.
Referred to a House committee
within one congress session
Complaint passes House committee
Complaint passes the House plenary
Impeachment complaint filed and endorsed
Impeachment resolution approved by 1/3 of House members
The complaint is calendared in House business
House can course its resolution through a committee, but it is
not required.
Referred to a House committee
Complaint passes House committee
within one congress session
Complaint passes the House plenary
In the past, when impeachment complaints under the "long" route were
not calendared within 10 session days and referred to a committee
three days after, the complaints merely "die", but they did not
trigger the one-year ban and succeeding complaints were allowed in the
same year.
That was how lawmakers treated Duterte's impeachment. There were four
impeachment complaints filed on different dates. The House did not act
on the first three complaints filed in December 2024 until the chamber
went on break during the holidays. When they resumed session in
February 2025, legislators approved a fourth complaint through the
"fast track" method and "archived" the first three complaints. Under
the 2003 Supreme Court decision, the entire thing was supposed to
stand legal scrutiny because none of the first three complaints
reached committee referral.
But Duterte challenged the matter before the Supreme Court and argued
that the House, for not acting on the first three complaints, violated
the one-year ban against her impeachment. The Supreme Court, which
only acts when petitioned to, agreed and set a new precedent in doing
so.
Indeed, determining when an impeachment is initiated is important
because it triggers the one-year ban on impeaching the same official.
For concerned citizens and lawmakers, the constitutional ban is a
huge roadblock
in seeking accountability from top public officials like the
president, vice president and even Supreme Court justices, who by law,
can only be removed from office through impeachment.
For the court, however, the ban is a due process mechanism for the
accused.
History shows, however, that the timeline of previous impeachment
efforts have largely been compliant with this view of the latest
Supreme Court ruling.
For instance, impeachment complaints against former Ombudsman
Merciditas Gutierrez and elections chair Andres Bautista were both
calendared in the House order within three session days. The same
complaints were referred to the House justice committee within two to
three session days.
Before Duterte, past impeachments aligned with ruling timeline
Placed in House
order of business
Referred to
a House committee
Ombudsman Merciditas Gutierrez
Elections chair Andres Bautista
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno
Placed in House order
of business
Referred to a House
committee
Both officials were eventually impeached by the House, but trial at
the Senate did not push through after they resigned from their posts
before hearings could begin.
Meanwhile, former Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached in 2011
through the "fast track" method. Over one-third of House membership
then approved the impeachment complaint when it was filed. Corona was
convicted and removed from office during a Senate trial.
Prinz Magtulis
