Why file Duterte impeachment rap early? Because SC allows it – Colmenares

MANILA, Philippines — The first petition for the second set of impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte was filed ahead of the prescribed end of the one-year bar rule because the latest Supreme Court (SC) decision allowed it.

Former Bayan Muna Rep. and lawyer Neri Colmenares gave this explanation on Monday.

Colmenares said that SC’s decision to define session days as a calendar day during which the House holds its session means that the first impeachment complaint filed last December 2, 2024 should have been included in the order of business by January 14, 2025.

Then, the complaint must be sent to the House committee on justice by January 21, he added.

The 19th Congress was in session until December 21, 2024, and resumed session by January 13, 2025. 

However, the House rarely adjourned sessions during that span — which means sessions may be held everyday from Monday to Wednesday but it would only count as one session day.

“Well, that is what we thought because based on the original decision of the Supreme Court, the next filings can be made by February 6,” Colmenares said.

“But here in the decision under the motion for reconsideration, they changed the definition and counting of session days. Or at least, that is how we read it. It’s now a calendar day during which Congress holds session,” he noted.

“You know here in Congress, they sometimes hold sessions for three days, but count it as a single day when they stop the watch. But for them (SC), based on this decision, they would not count that as ‘three days’. So now, the one year bar lapsed by January 15,” the counsel counted.

Colmenares said this means a new complaint against Duterte could have been filed as early as January 16, but they only learned of this matter after the SC released its decision last January 29.

“To be honest, as early as January 16 actually, we can already do that but we only saw the decision the other day only. So if that’s the case, we could have filed anytime after January 15, and we think this is the most opportune moment for us to file it,” he pointed out.

“So, we’re following the Supreme Court decision. We’re following the Constitution and the rules. That’s why in this case, we filed the complaint at the correct timing. It is within the Supreme Court decision and after the one-year bar,” he added.

In its July 25, 2025 decision, the Supreme Court said that the impeachment against Duterte is declared void ab initio for violating the one-year bar rule, which means that new complaints can be filed by February 6, 2026.

However, Makabayan’s decision to file complaints ahead of the previously prescribed date was hinged on the resolution dated January 28, 2025.

“Considering the above, and after looking into the tabulated session days of the first three impeachment complaints, it was concluded that ‘the 10 session days should be reckoned from the filing and endorsement of the first impeachment complaint on December 2, 2024,” the Supreme Court said in its resolution.

“Thus, respondent House had until January 14, 2025 to include it in the Order of Business and until January 21, 2025 to refer it to the proper committee,’” it added.

“Simply put, and as repeated in the ponencia to which we agree, “[r]espondents were, therefore, not able to comply with Article XI, Section 3(2) by putting the three endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives within 10 session days,” it observed.

“Thus, the fourth impeachment complaint, 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’,” it declared.

Earlier, Makabayan filed the first of the second set of impeachment complaints against Duterte. Three grounds for impeachment were mentioned:

• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged gross abuse of discretionary powers over P612.5 million in confidential funds from December 2022 until the third quarter of 2023
• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged her gross disregard of transparency and accountability, making a mockery of the audit process by 1) ordering subordinates to prepare implausible accomplishment reports supported by fabricated liquidation reports and falsified documents, and 2) to submit the same to the commission on audit to support the questionable use of confidential funds that is not in accordance with laws and regulations, causing great injury to the government and the taxpayers
• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged dereliction of official duty, with her willful refusal to recognize congressional oversight during budget deliberations and its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation

Regarding the confidential fund (CF) issue, the complainants mentioned the issues raised during the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability, where the Office of the Vice President (OVP) got a P125 million CF despite the agency’s original budget — crafted under the time of former Vice President Leni Robredo — not having such item.

Similarly, concerns about fictitious personalities signing off acknowledgement receipts (ARs) for the confidential expenses made by Duterte’s offices were raised.

In terms of the dereliction of official duty, the complainants mentioned Duterte’s penchant for skipping House hearings on her office’s budget, while the chamber prepares the annual budget.

Duterte was impeached last February 5, 2025 after 215 members of the House of Representatives of the 19th Congress filed and signed a fourth complaint, which was based on allegations of misuse of confidential funds in her offices, threats against ranking officials, and other possible violations of the 1987 Constitution.

The Articles of Impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate on the same day, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution — which mandates that a trial must begin promptly if at least one-third of all House members, or 102 out of 306 lawmakers from the 19th Congress, endorse the complaint.

READ: House impeaches Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate 

Trial, however, did not start immediately, as the Articles of Impeachment were not brought to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break. 

The Senate also remanded the articles to the House for alleged constitutional infirmities.

Also in February 2025, two petitions seeking to halt the impeachment complaints against Duterte were filed before the Supreme Court. 

One of the petitions came from a group of Mindanao-based lawyers who argued that the House failed to observe constitutional rules requiring it to act on filed impeachment complaints within 10 session days.

READ: Petition to stop impeachment trial vs VP Duterte filed at Supreme Court 

The House asserted in its reply to the Supreme Court that all impeachment complaints were acted upon within the required 10 session days, emphasizing that “session days” should not be confused with “calendar days” or “working days.”

Eventually, SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the SC unanimously deemed the Articles of Impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate as unconstitutional for violating the 1987 Constitution’s one-year bar rule.

The House submitted a motion for reconsideration to appeal the case. 

SC then announced last Thursday afternoon that they have dismissed with finality the House’s motion for reconsideration. /apl