THE Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday affirmed with finality its decision to block the impeachment of Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio, rejecting a motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

“By a unanimous vote of all those participating [justices], the Supreme Court en banc denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives, which sought to reverse the Court’s July 25, 2025 Decision that declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice-President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional,” SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae L. Ting told a media briefing.

The Court held that the fourth impeachment complaint, transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025, violated the constitutional one-year bar rule, which prohibits initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a 12-month period under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The SC clarified that the first three complaints were not included in the House Order of Business within the required 10 session days, which should be understood as calendar days when the House holds session.

The ruling also clarified the distinction between the two modes of initiating impeachment. The first mode involves a regular deliberative process via the Committee on Justice, while the second mode allows a complaint signed by at least one-third of all House members to “immediately initiate” proceedings.

The Court emphasized that the due process clause embodies a fundamental commitment to “reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness.”

It noted that even under the streamlined second mode, all endorsing members should have been given copies of the complaint and supporting evidence to ensure the process remains a “class of its own” (sui generis) rather than an arbitrary act.

The resolution is immediately executory, and no further pleadings will be allowed, the SC said in its resolution.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa took no part in the proceedings, while Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh was on leave, said Ms. Ting.

This finality signals that any new attempts to impeach the Vice-President may only proceed after the one-year ban officially expires on Feb. 6.

“We respect the Supreme Court’s decision on the prior impeachment proceedings involving Vice-President Sara Duterte,” Party-list Rep. Terry L. Ridon, chair of the House Committee on Public Accounts, said in a statement.

“However, once the one-year bar lapses on 6 February, the House of Representatives of the 20^th Congress will be prepared to receive and act on any new impeachment complaints filed against the Vice-President,” Mr. Ridon added.

Manila Rep. Joel R. Chua, chairperson of the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, said the House of Representatives may revise its rules on impeachment to align with the SC decision.

Mr. Chua, a member of the House prosecution team and the House Committee on Justice, said he would confer with colleagues on how best to amend the rules in a manner they deem appropriate and compliant with the ruling, noting that inputs may be sought from the complainants, some of whom are now members of the House.

“While I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision, we will abide by it because as a lawyer, I am an officer of the court and swore to respect and uphold our system anchored on the rule of law,” Mr. Chua said adding that his remarks reflect his personal view as a lawmaker. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking

FORMER Party-list Rep. Elizaldy “Zaldy” S. Co has filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) to halt an Ombudsman resolution that found probable cause to charge him with graft-related offenses, with court papers revealing he was in Sweden.

In a 571-page petition for certiorari and prohibition filed on Jan. 25 through this lawyer, Mr. Co sought to nullify the resolution issued by the Ombudsman last year, which ordered the filing of criminal charges against him before the Sandiganbayan.

The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Mr. Co and others for one count of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, one count of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under the Revised Penal Code, and another graft-related offense under RA 3019. Charges against two other respondents were dismissed for lack of probable cause.

He argued that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, claiming the resolution was issued in an “arbitrary” and “capricious” manner and with evident partiality. He said the Ombudsman allegedly disregarded an interim report by the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) that did not recommend his indictment.

The petition also alleged violations of his constitutional right to due process, saying the investigation was conducted with undue haste and that the Ombudsman had supposedly pre-judged his liability.

He asked the High Court to issue a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the Ombudsman resolution, including the prosecution of related criminal cases before the anti-graft court.

Court documents show Mr. Co’s verification and certification were notarized in Nacka, Sweden on Jan. 15, indicating his personal appearance before a Swedish notary. The filing did not state the duration or purpose of his stay abroad.

SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae L. Ting, told reporters on Thursday that the SC will deliberate on Mr. Co’s petition, including whether it may be affected by rules barring fugitives from seeking judicial relief, while the Ombudsman, through Assistant Ombudsman Jose Dominic F. Clavano IV, said the office will not be distracted by what it described as “dilatory tactics” and will pursue its investigation and prosecution of the flood control-related cases already filed before the Sandiganbayan. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking