G.R. No. 278353 ; G.R. No. 278359- Political Law – Constitutional Law – Accountability of Public Officers – Impeachment – One-year Bar; How Computed – Initiation of an Impeachment Complaint
In December 2024, three separate impeachment complaints were filed against Vice President Sara Duterte before the House of Representatives. The complaints were filed by citizens. Each complaint was indorsed by at least one lawmaker. No action was done. Due to the inaction, Kabataan Party-list Representative Raoul Manuel, through a privilege speech on 13 January 2025, reminded the lower house of the three impeachment complaints and the public clamor for them to act on it. The lower house then referred Rep. Manuel’s speech to the Committee on Rules. No other action was had.
On 5 February 2025, the three impeachment complaints were included in the Order of Business. On the same day, Lower House Secretary General Reginald Velasco transmitted the three impeachment complaints to House Speaker Martin Romualdez. In the afternoon of the same day, a caucus was called. After that, 215 Representatives signed a fourth impeachment complaint against Sara Duterte. With the signing of the 4th impeachment complaint by 215 Representatives, the Lower House archived the first three complaints. In less than two hours, the 4th impeachment complaint, which now constituted the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte, were transmitted to the Senate. The Senate did not act on the Articles of Impeachment.
On 18 February 2025, Duterte and a group of lawyers filed two separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition against both houses of Congress questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment proceeding.
ISSUE: Whether or not the impeachment proceeding against Vice President Sara Duterte is constitutional.
HELD: No.
The 4th impeachment complaint was filed within the one-year bar period
The first three complaints were filed under Sec. 3(2), Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution which provides:
A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
The 4th impeachment complaint was filed under Sec. 3(4), Art. XI which provides:
In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
The first three complaints, which were verified and duly indorsed, were not duly acted upon. The Constitution clearly requires that a valid complaint under Sec. 3(2) should be included in the Order of Business within ten session days and indorsed to the proper committee within three session days thereafter but the same was not complied with. This is a ministerial duty. The Lower House cannot put in its Rules that the Secretary General or the House Speaker may first assess an impeachment complaint before referring it to the Lower House. This is grave abuse of discretion.
Note: One session day does not necessarily mean one calendar day. A session day could last several calendar days. In this case, from December 2024 to February 2025, there were only nine session days.
Although the first three complaints were duly calendared within ten session days on 5 February 2025, they were not indorsed to the Committee on Justice. They were, in effect and in the words of the Lower House, archived. Such archival rendered the three complaints dismissed on 5 February 2025. Such termination triggered the one-year bar. Hence, the fourth impeachment complaint was filed within the one-year prohibition. The next impeachment complaint against Duterte may only be commenced on 6 February 2026.
What is the purpose of Sec. 3 (5), Art. XI (No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year)?
- To prevent undue or too frequent harassment; and
- To allow the legislature to do its principal task of legislation
Francisco vs House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 10 November 2003) provides that the counting of the one-year period shall start from the initiation of the impeachment complaint; that to “initiate” an impeachment proceeding involves the (1) act of filing and (2a) referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, (2b) by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House. Is this still controlling?
No. The SC ruled that the one-year bar may be reckoned from any of the following;
- The initiation of the impeachment complaint if unacted upon;
- The initiation of the impeachment complaint if partially acted upon and dismissed; or
- Upon the violation of the due process clause as Congress will already be acting without jurisdiction
In this case, the one-year period is reckoned from the time that the first three impeachment complaints were no longer viable or dismissed.
Due process was not observed
- The Articles of Impeachment (AOI) should be accompanied by evidence. Here, the AOI had no attachments;
- Evidence attached should be sufficient to prove allegations. Here, evidence cannot be assessed as they were not attached;
- The AOI and the attached evidence shall be made available to ALL members of the lower house and not only to those who are considering its indorsement. Here, only those aligned to the House Speaker were given access to the AOI (no attached evidence at that);
- Each member of the lower house must be given a reasonable period to reach an independent decision whether or not to indorse the impeachment complaint. Here, the Representatives who signed the 4th impeachment complaint had no more than two hours to study the complaint (which had no attachments); and
- The impeachable official shall be given the opportunity to respond before the lower house transmits the AOI to the Senate. Here, Duterte was not furnished a copy. The lower house immediately transmitted the AOI to the Senate.
Adjournment Sine Die of Congress terminates all pending matters. Does this include non-legislative matters like a pending impeachment complaint?
Yes. Any business that remains unacted upon by Congress (HOR and Senate) at the end of Congress’ term does not cross over to a new Congress after the new members have been elected. Hence, all pending business in the 19th Congress cannot be carried over to the 20th Congress.
