Talks are rife of impeachment efforts against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte this year.

This will not be Vice President Duterte’s first rodeo, as the House of Representatives already indicted her last year, but failed to get a conviction after the Supreme Court declared the trial unconstitutional. The constitutional one-year bar ends in February, allowing lawmakers to impeach her again if they want to.

President Marcos, meanwhile, has yet to deal with an actual impeachment complaint in his three years in office. The Cardema couple tried to file a petition last year, but were unsuccessful.

The House goes back to work after the holiday season on January 26, allowing any critic of the President to slap a complaint against him.

Where the rumors are coming from

Duterte is likely to face the same predicament as last year, even though it remains to be seen whether an impeachment complaint against her will secure the same level of support as in 2025.

When the House impeached her in February, the chamber enlisted 215 members to back the petition that castigated her for alleged betrayal of public trust, among other grounds, in relation to her supposed misuse of confidential funds and threats to the President and his family.

It was that complaint that was transmitted to the Senate, until the Supreme Court intervened and barred the trial at the upper chamber.

Before the petition with 215 signatories hurdled the chamber, there were three petitions filed in December 2024 — led separately by Akbayan, Makabayan, and religious groups. The High Court had ruled that these petitions filed via the “long way” (because they had to undergo the justice committee) cannot be substituted by the fourth complaint (which was filed under the “faster way” because it already met the one-third signature requirement and did not have to go through the committee level).

Makabayan’s progressive allies outside Congress such as BAYAN have already said that they are eyeing to refile an impeachment complaint after the one-year bar ends. Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña has also expressed readiness to endorse an impeachment complaint against Duterte that will be filed by civil society organizations.

As for Marcos, the possibility of an impeachment complaint against him has been floated by House Senior Deputy Majority Leader Edgar Erice, who said that a pro-Duterte group has reached out to him to ask for his support.

Malacañang has said talks of impeaching the president are “unsubstantiated” and are a product of political maneuvering.

Supreme Court ruling

Whoever takes a shot at either Marcos or Duterte will have to deal with the reality of a much more complicated impeachment process.

Sara Z. Duterte v. House of Representatives et al., the Supreme Court ruling that saved Duterte from further political spectacle in the Senate, imposed new requirements on impeachment pursued via the “faster way.”

The Constitution says: “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

The ruling, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, articulates standards that must be met in pursuing this “faster way” of impeachment. These include the following:

• The draft articles of impeachment must be accompanied by evidence.
• The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges.
• Copy of the complaint and evidence must be available to all House members.
• The respondent should be given the opportunity to be heard.
• House members must be given ample time to reach their independent decision on whether to endorse the complaint. The Supreme Court has the power to review whether the period given is sufficient.
• The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts, and they must be sufficiently grave.

Critics of the Supreme Court decision have said the ruling added requirements that have no constitutional basis and undermines impeachment as a process to exact accountability from impeachable officials.

Before, the House did not need to hear the side of the respondent before it impeaches them under the constitutionally valid shortcut, since the impeachable official’s defense can be articulated in the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.

The ruling also forces the House to second-guess itself before pursuing the “faster way” of impeachment due to risks that the Supreme Court would later invalidate its actions.

As impeachment is mainly a political process that is driven by urgency, the quasi-judicial nature of the requirements will also complicate efforts by impeachment movers in the House to consolidate support among lawmakers, especially the fence-sitters.

Political roadblocks

A successful impeachment effort against Marcos and Duterte is also complicated by current political landscapes.

While Marcos’ approval numbers are at their lowest and even though rumors of another coup in the chamber still persist, the House is still ruled by Speaker Bojie Dy, his party mate at Partido Federal ng Pilipinas. Behind the scenes, lawmakers still look up to the President’s son Sandro Marcos. No impeachment effort will prosper as long as he remains majority leader.

Lawmakers may also find themselves more reluctant to support any impeachment effort against Duterte, whom surveys show remains the front-runner in the 2028 presidential elections. Lawmakers’ endorsement of a petition against her puts them at risk of upsetting the potential successor of President Marcos in Malacañang.

Impeaching either of the two is not impossible, but it has become significantly more constrained. – Rappler.com