“The Court emphasized ‘the impeachment process is primarily a legal, political, and Constitutional procedure’”
THE Supreme Court recently rendered a decision denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the House of Representatives, noting the motions for interventions of the movant-intervenors in the case of Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al. (G.R. 278353, Jan. 28, 2026).
The Supreme Court clarified and explained the Constitutional requirements of impeachment. It emphasized “the impeachment process is primarily a legal, political, and Constitutional procedure.”
The Court stressed impeachment “is not a purely political proceeding.” This “means the Bill of Rights–especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases–applies to the entire impeachment process.”
It declared the impeachment proceedings may be subject to judicial review under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution. This is rooted in “the nature of the… institutions subject to impeachment, [its] … effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its status as a constitutional process.”
There are two modes of initiating an impeachment proceeding under the 1987 Constitution.
First, a verified complaint is “filed by any member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.” (Article XI, Section 3[2]).
Second, “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.” (Article XI, Section 3[4])
In relation to the first mode, “[n]either the secretary general nor the speaker of the House is granted by the Constitution any discretion to determine when this period commences.”
They likewise have no discretion “except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days.”
The Court explained “for the initiation stage of impeachment which is a Constitutional process, a session day is a calendar day in which the House of Representatives holds a session. This [interpretation] aligns with the primordial value of accountability of impeachable public officials…”
“Complaints based on the second mode [under] Article XI, Section 3(4)… are deemed initiated, for purposes of the one-year bar under Article XI, Section 3(5) upon the valid endorsement of at least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives.”
“A valid endorsement includes [proper] verifications from all endorsing members that they have also seen the evidence supporting the allegations of the complaint, [as required under] the current Rules on Impeachment of the House of Representatives.”
“[I]n cases of multiple complaints, the Constitution does not require any priority between the first and second modes of initiating impeachment complaints.”
However, the [Court clarified the] second mode of impeachment will be barred under Article XI, Section 3(5) if there are pending complaints under the first mode that violate the [Constitutionally mandated periods].”
The House of Representatives has the prerogative to determine whether the requirements of the second mode under Article XI, Section 3(4) – including proper verification, supporting evidence, and endorsement by at least one-third of all its members—have been complied with. (Op cit.)
This determination may be made by the House sitting in plenary, through verification of the appropriate committee prior to endorsement of the majority floor leader to the plenary, or any other alternative means at the discretion of the House of Representatives. (Op cit.)
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Impeachment of the 19th Congress provides “the complaint be referred to the Committee on Justice.”
However, while respecting the authority of the House of Representatives to promulgate its own rules, the Court interpreted that referral to the Committee under the second mode of impeachment is not mandatory. (Op cit.)
In the Duterte case, the House of Representatives and its Secretary General “were… [unable] to comply with Article XI, Section 3(2) by [failing to include] the three endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business…within 10 session days.”
“Thus, the fourth impeachment complaint [filed under the second mode], even if endorsed by more than one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives, is barred by Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.”
