Official

 OFFICIAL STATEMENT PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PhilConsa)

On the Supreme Court Ruling in G.R. No. 278353

“Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives, et al.”

July 30, 2025

The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) expresses its serious concern over the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 278353, which nullified the impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. With due respect to the Honorable Court, we believe this decision overreaches constitutional boundaries, disrupts the separation of powers, and weakens Congress’ exclusive authority to hold impeachable officers accountable.

The Facts Cannot Be Ignored

Between December 2024 and February 2025, four impeachment complaints were filed against Vice President Duterte. The first three complaints, though officially docketed, were never pursued. They were neither found sufficient in form and substance nor referred for committee hearings. On February 5, 2025, a fourth complaint—this time endorsed by 215 members of the House, more than the required one-third—was transmitted as Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, in full accordance with the Constitution.

Yet on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the fourth complaint was barred under the one-year rule in Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, on the theory that the filing of earlier complaints—even if not acted upon—already “initiated” the impeachment process.

This Interpretation Is Constitutionally Flawed

PhilConsa respectfully but firmly disagrees with this interpretation. The one-year bar rule was designed to prevent harassment through repeated impeachment proceedings—not to protect impeachable officers from ever facing trial by allowing them to take cover behind mere filings. As the Court itself held in Francisco v. House of Representatives, impeachment is only deemed initiated after the complaint is found sufficient in form and substance and referred to the Committee on Justice. The earlier complaints never reached that stage. To treat them as having “initiated” proceedings defies both logic and constitutional intent.

This ruling invites dangerous abuse. It opens the door for impeachable officials—or their allies—to deliberately file weak or premature complaints to “consume” the one-year window and block any real effort at accountability. This is not a safeguard against harassment—it is a blueprint for evasion.

Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism

This case called for judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The Constitution gave the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try and decide it. These are textual, exclusive powers, and the Judiciary’s role in such matters should be limited to clear, grave abuses that nullify constitutional norms.

Instead, the Court stepped into the heart of a political process already underway—substituting its own judgment for that of a constitutional majority of the House. It interpreted the one-year bar so broadly that it now disables the very mechanism of impeachment in all but the rarest cases.

This ruling, though perhaps well-intentioned, is a clear instance of judicial activism. It turns the Judiciary from a neutral guardian of the Constitution into an arbiter of congressional timing and internal processes—matters the Constitution never assigned to the courts.

Judicial activism, if unchecked, becomes judicial supremacy. And that supremacy can, over time, paralyze the political departments that the people themselves empowered.

Doctrine of Operative Fact

We also wish to underscore that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the one-year bar were to be upheld, the Doctrine of Operative Fact should have applied. This principle recognizes the legal effects of acts done in good faith under a law or process later declared unconstitutional, in order to avoid injustice and institutional disruption.

In this case, the House initiated the impeachment complaint with more than one-third support, the Senate convened as an Impeachment Court, and the Vice President was served with summons. She filed a formal Answer. All these were done in good faith, based on long-standing jurisprudence and the clear text of the Constitution.

To declare all those acts null and void—after the process had matured to the point of trial—is not only legally harsh, it is institutionally destabilizing. The doctrine exists precisely to prevent this outcome.

Due Process Is Not Incompatible with the Doctrine

Some may argue that applying the Doctrine of Operative Fact would violate the due process rights of the impeached official. PhilConsa respectfully disagrees.

The Doctrine of Operative Fact does not override due process. Rather, it assumes that the process leading up to the act in question was carried out in accordance with law and fairness. If there had been clear violations of due process—such as denying notice or the right to respond—then the impeachment could be questioned on that basis alone.

But that is not what happened here. The Vice President was served with process. She responded. She was given the opportunity to defend herself. Congress and the Senate acted within their constitutional powers. Due process was not violated; it was respected.

Thus, invoking the Doctrine of Operative Fact here is not a threat to due process—it is a defense of institutional integrity. It preserves the lawful actions of Congress and the Senate made in good faith and under the presumption of regularity.

A Call for Constitutional Fidelity

PhilConsa thus makes the following respectful but resolute appeal:

 • We call on the Supreme Court to revisit its decision, and to interpret the one-year bar rule consistently with its own prior rulings and the original intent of the framers;

 • We urge the Senate, as the Impeachment Court, to assert its institutional mandate and proceed with the impeachment trial as constitutionally required;

 • And we remind all constitutional actors—legislators, jurists, and public officials alike—that accountability must not be undermined by technicality or judicial overreach.

We defend the rule of law, not merely through doctrine, but through balance—by respecting the limits of each branch, and by remembering that the Constitution demands action, not evasion.

Let no court, no officer, and no institution stand in the way of constitutional duty. Impeachment is not harassment. It is accountability. And accountability is the cornerstone of the Republic.

CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO (ret.)

Chairman, Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa)

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court