Case Digest (G.R. No. 278353)
Facts:
Sara Z. Duterte, in her capacity as the Vice President of the Philippines, G.R. No. 278353; and Atty. Israelito P. Torreon et al., G.R. No. 278359, July 25, 2025, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint filed against Vice‑President Sara Z. Duterte and the consequent transmittal of Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, seeking relief by petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65.
Private citizens filed three verified impeachment complaints against Vice‑President Duterte on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024 (the “first three complaints”), each endorsed by members of the House and filed pursuant to Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution and the House’s impeachment rules. The House Secretary‑General, Reginald Velasco, did not immediately transmit those endorsed complaints to the Speaker for inclusion in the Order of Business; instead, on February 5, 2025 (the last session days of the 19th Congress), 215 House members signed and verified a separate impeachment complaint (the “fourth complaint”) under Article XI, Section 3(4), which by its terms constituted Articles of Impeachment; the House directed the Secretary‑General to transmit those Articles to the Senate and simultaneously archived the first three complaints.
The Senate received the Articles on February 5, 2025 but took no immediate plenary action and adjourned for the election season; the Senate later convened as an impeachment court on June 10, 2025, took preliminary organizational steps, then referred the matter to committee and returned the case to the House for clarification. Vice‑President Duterte and Torreon et al. filed separate Rule 65 petitions in this Court (docketed G.R. Nos. 278353 and 278359) contesting: (a) justiciability and this Court’s power to review impeachment actions; (b) the House’s alleged failure to comply with the 10‑ and 3‑session‑day mandates of Article XI, Section 3(2); (c) whether inaction by the House on the first three complaints effectively triggered the one‑year bar in Article XI, Section 3(5); and (d) whether the fourth complaint violated petitioners’ due process and speedy‑disposition rights. The petitions sought, among other relief, certiorari and prohibition and interlocutory injunctive relief.
This Court issued a July 8, 2025 resolution ordering detailed compliance from the House about the dates of endorsement, transmittal, and circulation of complaints and drafts; the House filed its compliance on July 16, 2025. The consolidated petitions were heard and decided by the Supreme Court En Banc; the Court considered precedent including...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are these petitions justiciable and may the Supreme Court exercise judicial review over the impeachment proceedings challenged here?
- Is the impeachment process primarily a legal (and thus reviewable) proceeding, or a purely political one immune from judicial review?
- Under Article XI, Section 3(2), (a) did the House comply with the duty to include the three citizen‑endorsed complaints in the Order of Business and refer them to the proper committee within the prescribed session days, and (b) did the transmittal of the fourth complaint toll those constitutional periods?
- Did the House commit grave abuse of discretion by verifying the fourth complaint and transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate?
- Is the fourth impeachment complaint and the Articles of Impeachment (a) barred by the one‑year prohibition of Article XI, Section 3(5) because of the House’s prior inaction on the three complaints, and (b) unconstitutional for violating the responden...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)