SC decision on VP Sara impeachment ‘dangerous’ — lawyers’ group

MANILA, Philippines — The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) has expressed its “dissent” on the Supreme Court ruling calling the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional. 

In a statement on Wednesday, July 30, FLAG called for “a longer period of reflection, deliberation and perhaps even debate” over the ruling, saying it creates a “dangerous precedent that seriously undermines impeachment as the ultimate accountability mechanism” if not reconsidered. 

“The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) strongly disagrees with the Supreme Court's Decision in Duterte vs. House of Representatives, et al. (GR No. 278353) which declared the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution and as well unconstitutional and void ab initio for violation of fundamental rights,” the group’s statement read. 

Accountability mechanism. FLAG argued that the decision, if not reconsidered, establishes a “dangerous precedent” that severely weakens impeachment, which they said is the accountability mechanism for the highest-ranking public officials under the 1987 Constitution.

The group said that by “over-judicializing” this process, designed to ensure accountability and determine continued fitness for high office, the ruling effectively shields all impeachable officials by making the filing of complaints unduly demanding and tedious. 

“In conflating impeachment as a "legal and constitutional process" with principles of criminal law and administrative law, the Court has also departed from the very nature of the impeachment process which makes it substantially different from criminal law' or any other branch of law, for that matter, thus its sui generis nature,” the group’s statement read. 

They further contended that by conflating impeachment with principles of criminal and administrative law, the Court has deviated from the very nature of the impeachment process, which is distinct from other branches of law, thus losing its unique character.

Following the July 15 ruling of the high court, the House of Representatives, which initiated the impeachment, said that it will file a motion for reconsideration on the ruling. 

New interpretations. The group also pointed out that the decision was “grossly unfair” because it retroactively applies new interpretations of accountability mechanisms and due process requirements to a pending impeachment proceeding that was filed under a previous understanding of those provisions.

“It effectively changes the rules midstream. The impeachment complaints were filed under a previous, then-unchanged understanding of the word ‘initiate’ in relation to the one-year bar and should, thus, have not been subjected to an interpretation of the same provision that did not yet exist at the time they were filed,” the group said. 

How the court ruled. The high court cited a violation of the constitutional “one-year bar,” which prohibits more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a single year. 

Because multiple impeachment complaints against Duterte were filed and processed in the span of a few months, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to bar the Senate from holding an impeachment trial, declaring all related proceedings null and void from the beginning. 

However, the high court clarified that its ruling does not absolve Duterte of any of the charges brought against her; it only means that a new impeachment complaint may not be initiated until Feb. 6, 2026.

RELATED: ‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court bars impeachment vs VP Sara Duterte