NAAWAN, Misamis Oriental (MindaNews / 8 August) – Hunted and haunted for plundering the treasure of the nation – the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education she once headed, Vice President Sara Duterte finds herself at the edge of a precipice. She crawled to the Supreme Court for help.

She jumped in joy, and the Duterte cult cried in tumultuous glee when the highest court obliged their bidding.

The Supreme Court En Banc on July 25, 2025, declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Moreover, the said document of impeachment is bereft of evidence to support the allegations of the crimes of Duterte.

Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The status quo remains. Sara Duterte is unscathed.

The decision of the Supreme Court was greeted by a raging storm of protest, particularly its consequence of freeing a high official of the land from accountability.

The people are angry and demand retribution.

The House of Representatives immediately filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

The Speaker of the House, Martin Romualdez, decried the factual misreading and retroactive procedural burdens imposed by the Supreme Court, which he said undermine both the Constitution and the people’s right to demand accountability from high officials. He asserted that the Constitution is clear that the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. “That power is not shared. Not subject to pre-approval. And not conditional.”

The Speaker was tantamount to sayi ng that the Supreme Court, by prescribing rules on how an impeachment should be done, i.e., the signatories of the Articles of Impeachment must have read and understood what they read, intrudes into the jurisdiction and usurps the power and prerogatives of the House. It is not only an insult to the members of the House but also a blatant violation of the fundamental law of the land.

Romualdez argued that the House did not violate the Constitution’s bar on one-year impeachment.

He pointed out that the House acted within the 10-session-day limit provided in the Constitution when it transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint on February 5, 2025.

“The House transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint – filed and signed by 215 Members – to the Senate. Only after this transmittal did we archive the earlier three complaints. That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four,” he explained.

Accordingly, even the Court’s own precedent – Francisco v. House – supports this: Only one impeachment can be initiated, and that initiation begins with a one-third endorsement or a referral. That is exactly what the House did,” Romualdez asserted.

And the Court erred in saying that the filing of the Articles of Impeachment denied Duterte due process by not allowing her to respond to the charges against her. The house is not the venue to hear impeachable officials. Its role is to charge them properly through Articles of Impeachment, which, when transmitted to the Senate, requires it to try them without delay, upon convening into an Impeachment Court.

Duterte has all the time to defend herself and clear her name before the Senate Impeachment Court. But she opted not to be heard, or refused and avoided a hearing by appealing to the Supreme Court to quash the impeachment case against her, and ipso facto, her trial in the Senate Impeachment Court.

Hence, she has no reason to complain of injustice or political persecution.

The big question is: What if the Supreme Court refuses to be poked from its position and won’t reverse its ruling?

Legally, the impeachment proceedings cannot proceed. It should be noted, however, that while the Supreme Court bars the conduct of an impeachment trial, it does not absolve VP Duterte of her high crimes. She remains accountable. Thus, as a government official, she could be prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman and tried by the Sandiganbayan for the same crimes enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment, without need to wait for the final decision of the Supreme Court.

Public officials convicted of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan can face both criminal penalties (e.g., imprisonment) and administrative penalties (e.g., perpetual disqualification from holding public office).

The penalty that the Sandiganbayan may impose is more severe than what the Senate Impeachment Court can. So those who wish to end the Duterte impunity ought to take the Sandiganbayan route. It is more rewarding.

(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. William R. Adan, Ph.D., is retired professor and former chancellor of Mindanao State University at Naawan, Misamis Oriental)