By Atty. Roland E. Collado
The brouhaha over the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte has finally ended with a sour note for the Romualdez-led 19th Congress.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the impeachment case filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, citing constitutional violations by the House of Representatives.
Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting explained that the impeachment complaint breached key constitutional safeguards — including the one-year bar rule and Duterte’s right to due process.
That being said, the dismissal may have effectively directed the Senate not to proceed with an impeachment trial.
The high court emphasized that legal procedures must be strictly observed to uphold the integrity of the impeachment process.
While the ruling does not prevent future complaints after the one-year limit, it effectively nullifies the current case.
Legal experts see the Supreme Court’s decision as a reminder of the importance of constitutional discipline and fairness — principles that public servants, including Vice President Duterte, are entitled to under the law.
The 19th Congress had voted to impeach Duterte in February after she was accused of misusing confidential funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.
But the Supreme Court has finally said its piece: the impeachment vote violated a constitutional ban on having multiple impeachment proceedings in a year.
The SC said it was not absolving Duterte of the charges she faces.
But the ruling means she has been granted a reprieve from possible ousting, at least until February 2026.
While many critics on the decision dismissing the impeachment case filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, the 1987 Philippine Constitution has significantly expanded the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, allowing it to review actions of all branches of government for “grave abuse of discretion.”
Under its expanded jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can now review actions of any branch or instrumentality of the government, including the executive and legislative branches, if there is a “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”.
In essence, the 1987 Constitution significantly strengthened the Supreme Court’s role to examine not just the legality but also the manner in which a government body exercises its powers.
Evidently, the Supreme Court of the Philippines is indeed considered the final arbiter in constitutional disputes and the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.
