Vice President Sara Duterte is using the same playbook from 2025, running to the Supreme Court to block the impeachment effort against her in the House of Representatives.

Why does she think the impeachment complaints her are invalid?

Here are her arguments.

The active complaints supposedly violated the one-year bar.

Four complaints have been filed against the Vice President this year — two before February 6, and two after that date.

February 6 is an important date because the Supreme Court said in its original ruling in 2025 that Duterte’s one-year immunity from impeachment — triggered by the “unconstitutional” effort by the House to impeach her the first time — lapsed February 5.

Two groups of complainants, however, filed their petitions on February 2, after the Supreme Court issued a new ruling saying that Duterte’s first impeachment proceedings were triggered on January 14, 2025. This drew confusion, with complainants believing it meant that Duterte’s one-year immunity now lapsed on January 15, 2026, although the new Supreme Court ruling did not explicitly state that.

When the House justice committee began deliberating on the form of the four complaints against Duterte, the group of Kiko Aquino Dee withdrew their February 2 complaint. The other complaint filed by Makabayan on February 2 was also set aside by the panel amid worries that the Supreme Court might consider the case a violation of the one-year bar.

In her Supreme Court petition, Duterte said that the withdrawal of the Dee complaint and the setting aside of Makabayan’s complaint “constituted their dismissal,” triggering a new one-year immunity for Duterte.

“Acting on and sustaining the third and fourth impeachment complaints render the proceedings before the committee on justice unconstitutional,” Duterte said, referring to the complaints filed separately by the group of Father Jose Saballa and lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera.

House justice committee member Terry Ridon said Duterte’s claim is a misapplication of both the Constitution and jurisprudence, saying what matters is that only one referral was made to the justice committee.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, he said, “Even Duterte v. House recognizes that it is the process within the Committee on Justice that determines which complaints proceed and which are dismissed.”

Duterte says the referral of the complaints is invalid.

Duterte claimed that there is no valid referral of the complaints because it was supposedly the rules committee, and not the House as a collective body, that referred the complaints to the justice committee.

Duterte’s argument cites the 1987 Constitution, which says that the House has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment, and therefore has the sole prerogative to include any complaint in the order of business in the plenary within 10 session days from filing and make a referral to the proper committee within three session days.

Duterte flagged that it was Speaker Bojie Dy, and not the House as a collective, who referred the complaints to the justice committee, based on the letter-referral by the House deputy secretary general.

“The act of referral is non-delegable,” Duterte said.

Ridon countered this, pointing out that the referral of the complaints was carried out in the plenary.

Duterte added that the House did not deliberate on the complaints prior to the referral. The House rules handbook does not require such action, and Ridon said this argument has no legal basis.

Duterte opposes the supposed ‘trial’ nature of the House proceedings.

After the House justice committee declared two of the four complaints sufficient in grounds, panel chairperson Jinky Luistro described the next stage of the process — a public hearing where pieces of evidence and witnesses will be evaluated — as a “mini-trial.”

Duterte has weaponized that description in her favor, calling it a “fishing expedition” that gravely abuses the House’s power. She insisted that only the Senate has the constitutional right to hold a trial against an impeachable official.

Luistro later stood by her use of the phrase, saying it was meant to make the process understandable to the viewing public.

As per the House rules handbook, the conduct of a public hearing comes after preliminary determinations on the form and substance and grounds of the complaints. Luistro said the process is akin to a preliminary investigation in which clarificatory questions can be asked towards resource persons and witnesses.

Duterte also alleged due process violation and double standards by the House, comparing her situation to that of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who quickly survived his impeachment battle in the House.

Duterte flags the justice committee’s crafting of additional impeachment rules.

During its hearing on March 25, the House justice committee approved ground rules in the impeachment hearings of Duterte.

Duterte opposed this, saying the guidelines were not approved by the entire House of Representatives.

“The act of respondent committee on justice in assuming a power explicitly reserved to the House of Representatives itself sets a dangerous precedent where a mere committee can supplant, amend, supplement, or in any way alter the rules governing impeachment proceedings thereby inviting arbitrariness and undermining constitutional safeguards,” Duterte said.

Rebuttal

Ridon said despite Duterte’s petition, the House will continue the proceedings until the end.

“In the face of these misrepresentations, Congress and the House Committee on Justice will continue to discharge their constitutional duty to hold the Vice President accountable for issues involving confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and threats against the President,” he said.

Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña said the Vice President’s filing before the Supreme Court only confirms that she has no plans of facing the allegations against her.

“A desperate Vice President clings to the Supreme Court,” Ridon added. – Rappler.com