Luistro to impeachment naysayers: Constitution doesn’t get tired

MANILA, Philippines — Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro reminds people who may be getting tired of impeachment discussions that the rule of law, the pursuit of accountability, and the 1987 Constitution itself do not get tired — and instead require all complaints to be examined.

In her opening speech during the House of Representatives’ committee on justice hearing on Monday, Luistro said that while public fatigue over impeachment is understandable — especially with complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte — the chamber and the panel had no choice but to address all complaints brought before them.

“That mandate is not optional. It is not seasonal. It is not subject to fatigue. It is a duty, and constitutional duties do not expire simply because public discourse grows weary. Some have asked: Are we not tired of impeachment? Admittedly, we have undergone impeachment proceedings against the vice president last year. And earlier this year, we also evaluated complaints against the president,” she said.

“So, yes, public fatigue may be understandable, but the answer my dear colleagues is simple: The Constitution does not get tired, the rule of law does not get tired, accountability does not get tired,” she added.

According to Luistro, Duterte’s impeachment, which the committee is currently discussing, will not be a social media contest.

“No condition, no hesitation. No excuses. We cannot avoid this duty. We cannot play blind to this… especially during a time that the spread of fake news is prevalent, we should be more careful and strong,” Luistro said in a mix of English and Filipino.

“What we need is to start this process of scrutiny, so that we will have clarity and we will not be lost in misinformation. So let me say this clearly: Impeachment is a constitutional process — not a social media contest. This would not be decided through hashtags, this would not be ruled through memes, this would not be about having the most likes,” she added.

Not recycled complaints

Luistro also disputed allegations that the complaints against Duterte were merely recycled, as they were similar to the first set of complaints filed in December 2024 and February 2025.

According to Luistro, the Supreme Court (SC) decision that disallowed the fourth impeachment complaint filed and signed by 215 House lawmakers on Feb. 5, 2025 — which used the fast-track mode — did not discuss the merits of the case.

“There are claims circulating that these impeachment complaints are merely recycled accusations already dismissed by the Supreme Court. Let us correct that — firmly and factually. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the allegation. It did not conduct a trial,” Luistro said.

“It did not absolve anyone of wrongdoing. The Court itself clarified that its ruling was limited to the constitutional one-year bar rule. It emphasized that it did not absolve the vice president from any of the charges. Those are not my words. Those are the Supreme Court’s own clarifications,” she added.

The House committee on justice will hold its hearing from March 2 to 4 to discuss the sufficiency in form and substance of the three impeachment complaints against Duterte.

For the second set of impeachment complaints against Duterte, four petitions have been filed by the following:

• Makabayan Coalition on Feb. 2, endorsed by ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, Gabriela Rep. Sarah Elago, Kabataan Rep. Renee Co
• civil society groups on Feb. 2, endorsed by Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima and Akbayan party-list Rep. Percival Cendaña
• lawyers and clergy members on Feb. 9, endorsed by de Lima
• lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera on Feb. 18, endorsed by Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. and Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V

However, earlier, the second group of complainants filed a letter to withdraw their petition, so that the process of holding Duterte accountable would be expedited. The withdrawal was later formalized during the hearing.

Almost all of the topics discussed in the four impeachment complaints have been brought up already in the first set of raps against Duterte — from allegations of confidential funds misuse, threats against ranking officials, bribery of officials, and other possible violations of the Constitution.

However, all four complaints featured a new factor: the testimony of Ramil Madriaga, Duterte’s former aide.

Madriaga previously asked the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate Duterte for alleged corrupt activities, claiming that he was responsible for “transporting large amounts of money to several persons as instructed by VP Sara.”

READ: Common denominator: VP Sara’s ex-aide new factor in 3 impeachment raps

While the Office of the Ombudsman has not yet launched a full-blown investigation into the affidavit, Madriaga’s testimony is the first time a person testified to having direct knowledge of the confidential fund issues raised by Duterte. /atm