House lawmakers on Sunday pushed back against recent Supreme Court (SC) rulings on impeachment, arguing that the High Court itself must address questions on constitutional interpretation and compliance with mandated timelines.
This even as the Makabayan bloc in Congress said it would file a new impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte today.
Despite the assumed February 6 expiry of the one-year prohibition against filing consecutive impeachment cases versus public officers – in this case, the Vice President — ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio said the bloc believes that date should be January 14.
In a TV interview Sunday, Tinio said they based their interpretation of the date on how the SC answered motions for reconsideration on its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte last year as unconstitutional.
The party-list solon noted that the High Court said it did not base its ruling on a matter of due process, but on the session days of the House of Representatives.
“Well, based on the new Supreme Court decision, binago na naman nila yung reckoning date ng one-year bar… it would seem na after January 14 ay pwede na… We’re ready as soon as tomorrow (Monday) to file the new complaint against the Vice President,” Tinio told TV Patrol.
The lawmaker said betrayal of public trust would still be the heart of the case against Duterte based on the alleged misspending of a combined P650 million in confidential funds of the Department of Education – while the VP was still its concurrent Secretary — and the Office the Vice President in 2023.
Asked by ONE News TV about the odds of seeing the impeachment against Duterte through to the Senate, Tinio said: “We expect that since the composition of the current Congress is not that different from the previous one, that those who endorsed, or at least a majority of those who endorsed the complaint in the 19th Congress, should also endorse this complaint.”
Malacañang also yesterday downplayed impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., who said he would focus on his recovery and official duties.
Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua said the Supreme Court’s latest decisions introduced new concepts that have revived long-standing debates on gaps and ambiguities in the 1987 Constitution, echoing Senate President Vicente Sotto III’s openness to constitutional amendments.
“With this new Supreme Court decision, because they added the concept of ‘deemed initiated,’ in my view it may already be time to take another look at the Constitution,” Chua said, adding that Sotto appears open to Charter change in light of recent developments.
Chua, a member of the House prosecution panel and the Committee on Justice, also said the House may revise its impeachment rules to comply with the SC ruling.
He said he plans to consult colleagues on possible changes and noted that the composition of the prosecution panel could also be adjusted.
“While I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision, we will abide by it because, as a lawyer, I am an officer of the court and swore to respect and uphold our system anchored on the rule of law,” Chua said, stressing that the statement reflected his personal view and not the collective position of the House.
Legal experts, meanwhile, said critics of the Supreme Court ruling may now move on from the decision on the impeachment against the Vice President while weighing their options.
Associate Dean Paolo Tamase of the University of the Philippines College of Law said critics are free to pursue a new impeachment attempt but must consider potential roadblocks in Congress and the courts due to what he described as a more “judicialized” process.
“They should also weigh the chances of a new impeachment attempt succeeding,” Tamase said, adding that alternatives to impeachment may also be explored in seeking political accountability.
Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, meanwhile, said the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that impeachment proceedings should be expeditious, but noted that the Constitution also imposes clear deadlines on the judiciary.
“It is very important to talk about the timeline since the Supreme Court seems interested in it, saying impeachment should be an expeditious process,” Ridon said. “But we’d also like to bring the question back to the Supreme Court.”
Ridon cited a self-executing constitutional provision requiring cases before the SC to be resolved within 24 months from the submission of briefs or memoranda.
He questioned whether the High Court has consistently complied with this requirement, pointing to long-pending cases of high public interest, including the unresolved non-contact apprehension case.
“To speak to Congress that impeachment is an expeditious matter, I think they should look at themselves as well on whether or not they are able to comply with this particular 24-month period,” he said.
Despite the Court’s pronouncements on impeachment-related procedures, Ridon said the House of Representatives would continue to carry out its constitutional mandate, with decisions anchored on facts, evidence, and the conscience of each lawmaker.
The exchange followed the Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld with finality its 2025 decision declaring the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
In an en banc decision dated July 25, 2025, the High Court said the complaint violated the one-year ban under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and due process guarantees, and that the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
The Court clarified, however, that the ruling did not absolve the Vice President of the allegations against her, and that a subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026.
Ridon said the impeachment complaint against Duterte may be refiled “as is,” noting that the ruling did not touch on the substance of the allegations.
“Yes, it can be refiled as is. There is no debate on the form and no debate on the substance,” Ridon said, adding that the facts cited in the earlier complaint — including the alleged misuse of confidential funds and reported threats — remain unchanged.
Chua agreed that the High Court ruling focused on technical issues rather than the merits of the case.
He said impeachment complaints may initially lack numbers but can gain support as lawmakers examine their substance, citing past cases involving former President Joseph Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“When the impeachment against President Estrada was filed, it was under the control of the House. When there was substance, it moved to the Senate,” Chua said.
“In the impeachment against Chief Justice Corona, at first there was no support, but as the trial progressed, the votes changed. In the end, conscience becomes the basis.”
Meanwhile, Tamase and retired Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio also dismissed fears of a constitutional crisis arising from the ruling.
“A debate over whether the Constitution has been violated, or whether it should be changed, doesn’t on its own rise to the level of a constitutional crisis,” Tamase said, noting that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and allows for amendments and revisions.
Lawyer Jennifer Arlene Reyes, a constitutional law author and professor, said the SC decision must be followed even if some disagree with it.
“Even though some, including me, do not totally agree with the latest SC resolution, everyone, especially Congress, must follow the said decision,” Reyes said, adding that a new impeachment complaint against the Vice President may already be filed soon.
Amid the debate, Malacañang said President Marcos will not be distracted by impeachment proceedings against him and will instead prioritize his health and official duties as the House Committee on Justice prepares to deliberate on impeachment complaints filed against him.
Editor’s Note: This is an updated article. Originally posted with the headline: “Solons push back vs SC on impeachment timelines”
