Bold opening: A single impeachment attempt against Vice President Sara Duterte was already split apart by a House committee, while two other charges move forward. And this is where the story gets nuanced and a bit controversial.
A first impeachment complaint, filed by the Makabayan Coalition accusing Duterte of violations tied to a one-year bar, was set aside by the House of Representatives’ committee on justice on Monday. The ruling centered on whether the complaint ran afoul of the constitutional rule that impeachment proceedings cannot be initiated against the same official more than once within a year.
Meanwhile, the committee found that the third and fourth impeachment complaints against Duterte met the requirements in form, allowing them to proceed for consideration.
During the session, Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro, who chairs the committee, led the discussion about formality and procedural sufficiency, especially in light of the constitutional restriction against duplicative impeachment filings within a 12-month period.
Context: some lawmakers argued that a new impeachment petition could only be filed starting February 6, 2026. This follows the record of the fourth impeachment complaint—which had 215 signatories—being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and filed on February 5, 2025.
Makabayan submitted its petition to the Office of the House Secretary General on February 2.
Under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, impeachment proceedings cannot be started against the same official more than once within a year.
The committee ultimately voted: 22 in favor of setting aside the first complaint, 10 against, and no abstentions.
Earlier that same Monday, the second impeachment complaint against Duterte was formally dropped.
With the first complaint set aside and the second withdrawn, only two impeachment actions remain active: the third complaint, filed by clergy members and lawyers, and the fourth petition from lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera.
In a note on editorial practice, the publisher reminds readers that comments reflect individual views and may not represent the publication’s position.
If you’re following this unfolding story, you’re not alone. Do you think the one-year rule is being applied consistently here, or is it shaping up to be a selective use of process? Share your thoughts in the comments.
