Metro Manila, Philippines – The impeachment process against Vice President Sara Duterte followed the Constitutional limit that prohibits multiple proceedings against one official within a year, House justice committee chairperson Jinky Luistro said.
Luistro issued the remark on Thursday, April 9, in response to Duterte’s petition before the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the impeachment proceedings at the House of Representatives over supposed constitutional flaws.
Duterte said the proceedings are void from the beginning for violating the one-year bar rule, after the first two complaints were set aside and withdrawn, respectively.
Four complaints were originally filed against Duterte in February, but only two advanced to the formal hearings.
“The committee is fully compliant with the one-year bar rule as interpreted by the Supreme Court. We see no violation of any constitutional limitation,” Luistro said.
In January, the SC affirmed its 2025 ruling that declared the previous attempt to oust Duterte as unconstitutional for violating the limit.
Luistro reiterated that her committee is “strictly following the rules of the House, the Constitution, and relevant Supreme Court rulings,” adding that the committee’s actions would withstand scrutiny.
She said Duterte’s move was expected, stating that it is always possible for parties to elevate issues before the court.
Luistro noted that the scheduled hearings on April 14, 22, and 29 will proceed in the absence of a temporary restraining order from the court.
Duterte and her allies separately filed petitions for review and prohibition before the High Court, seeking a stay order on the proceedings. The SC asked the complainants and the Congress to submit their comment.
House Speaker Bojie Dy earlier maintained that the proceedings will continue in line with their Constitutional mandate, and assured that all parties will be heard.
Duterte is facing two ouster bids for alleged culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, bribery, and high crimes, among others over allegations of fund misuse, threats to the first family, and unexplained wealth.
She and her defense team refused to face the previous hearing, calling it unconstitutional.
