Leaders of the House Committee on Justice on Monday flagged confusion arising from recent Supreme Court (SC) issuances on the one-year bar in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, citing conflicting reckoning dates in the high tribunal’s decision and a subsequent resolution.
House Committee on Justice vice chairperson Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora of San Juan City pointed to the SC’s July 2025 decision, which stated that the one-year prohibition begins on February 5, and contrasted it with a January 29, 2026 resolution that altered how a “session day” is counted.
“The Supreme Court declared that the one-year bar begins on Feb. 5. Now why is there confusion? Because in the resolution recently issued, the Supreme Court changed the counting, the reckoning, the counting of the term session day,” said Zamora, a lawyer.
“Bakit ito mahalaga (Why is this important)? The session day before was considered to be one that starts, one that begins with the session and then ends upon adjournment of the session,” she added, responding to a reporter’s question during a press conference.
Zamora, a member of the House Prosecution panel during the 19th Congress that impeached Duterte, noted that under the earlier understanding, a session day could span more than one calendar day, but the resolution declared that, for impeachment purposes, a session day is equivalent to a calendar day.
“So, now, the timeline made by the Supreme Court has been adjusted. Again, in their decision with all due respect to the Supreme Court, what is written in the decision is different, what is written in the resolution is different. That’s the confusion,” she said.
Zamora explained that the resolution appears to state that, as of January, the filing was already barred, based on the computation starting from the filing of the first impeachment complaint on December 2. Under that computation, January 15 was treated as the reckoning point.
The lawmaker said this was why a complaint was filed only now, as it was the first session day after the period lapsed and after the resolution was issued on the 28th. This, she noted, is where the confusion arose. She added that in the dispositive portion of the decision dated July last year, however, February 5 was cited as the reckoning date.
In the same press conference, House Committee on Justice chairperson Gerville Luistro of Batangas, also a lawyer, said the lower chamber now faces uncertainty on which reckoning period governs the one-year bar.
“It depends which decision you are referring to. Because if we are referring to the original decision of the Supreme Court, the basis of running of the one-year prohibition period is the impeachment complaint filed via 1/3 that was filed on February 5. That’s why they’re saying February 6, 2026 the second impeachment can already be filed,” Luistro said, also a member of the prosecution team.
Luistro said that if reference is being made to the Supreme Court’s recently issued resolution, it stated that the first impeachment complaint filed on December 2, 2024 was considered initiated due to the House’s inaction once the 10 session-day period expired.
That period ended on January 14, 2025, which, by implication, meant that the one-year prohibition period lapsed on January 15, 2026. She noted that this has once again created a dilemma on which date should prevail—the February 5 reckoning date or December 2—and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would clarify the matter.
“So, we are at a crossroad again. Which are we going to follow? Is it the reckoning period of February 5 or is it the reckoning period of December 2? I hope that this can be clarified by the Honorable Supreme Court,” Luistro said.
House Committee on Justice vice chairman Jonathan Keith Flores of Bukidnon said the lack of a clear computation in the resolution added to the uncertainty “that may lead again to another petition before the Supreme Court by other parties who may have an interest in the case.”
Another lawyer, House Committee on Public Accounts chairman Terry Ridon of Bicol Saro Party-list, said the timing of referral to the House Committee on Justice is crucial in determining compliance with the one-year bar.
“I think what is relevant at this point would be when the referral to the House Committee on Justice will be,” Ridon said in the same press conference. “So, that means if the referral is on the 6th of February onwards, I don’t think we will have a problem on that).”
He added that the referral to the Justice Committee marks the initiation of impeachment proceedings for purposes of the one-year prohibition.
