The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional due to timing issues. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen authored the decision, igniting debates over the court's role in impeachment proceedings. Critics contend this intervention shields Duterte from accountability.
On February 7, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision declaring the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional. Authored by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the ruling hinged on a technicality: the impeachment occurred within one year of a previous filing against her, violating the Constitution's requirement for at least a one-year interval.
The decision also outlined rules for impeachment proceedings, instructing Congress on how to conduct them and suggesting these would safeguard against abuse. However, the Court's counting method remains debated, with the core question being whether impeachment falls under judicial purview.
This ruling draws parallels to the 2018 ouster of former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, which Leonen labeled a 'legal abomination' for bypassing the formal impeachment process. Appointed by former President Benigno Aquino III, Sereno was removed by the Court for failing to file Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) from her time as a law professor. Leonen, also an Aquino appointee, dissented in her removal but participated in the proceedings.
In Duterte's case, the decision is viewed as a rescue benefiting both her and a Senate that delayed her trial for nearly half a year amid public protests. The House of Representatives plans to refile the complaint, but the Senate, under new leadership post-midterm elections, shows reluctance and instead promotes Charter Change (Cha-Cha) initiatives. This raises concerns about the separation of powers between Congress and the judiciary.
