Some smart people who study the law — called legal experts — are very worried about a new decision made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. They say this decision might let bad people get away with things by using fake complaints just to stop the real ones.
Let’s break it down.
🧩 What Really Happened?
Last week, the Supreme Court said that the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte were unconstitutional. That means the Court believed the complaints broke a rule in the Philippine Constitution — the highest law in the country.
The rule they mentioned says:
“You cannot file more than one impeachment complaint against the same official in one year.”
That rule is meant to protect government officials from being unfairly attacked again and again.
📅 The Timeline of the Complaints
Here’s how it all went down:
-
Four complaints were filed in Congress to try and impeach VP Duterte.
-
The first three complaints were filed in December 2024.
-
The fourth complaint was officially endorsed (supported) by the House of Representatives in February 2025.
-
That same day, the House dropped the first three complaints.
But here’s the tricky part: The Supreme Court said the moment any complaint is filed — even if no one does anything about it — it still counts as “starting” the impeachment process.
Because of that, the Court said the fourth complaint broke the one-year rule, and dismissed it.
⚖️ What’s the Big Deal?
Many experts say this new rule is very dangerous.
👨⚖️ Lawyer Rene Sarmiento, one of the people who helped write the 1987 Constitution, said this ruling changes how things were always done before.
👨⚖️ Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio also strongly disagreed. He explained:
“You can’t punish people for breaking a rule that didn’t even exist yet.”
He also criticized another part of the ruling that said VP Duterte was denied “due process”, meaning she wasn’t given a fair chance to defend herself. But this new “fair chance” rule was never required before.
⚠️ Why Experts Are Worried
👨🏫 UP Law Professor Paolo Tamase gave a real-life example. He said that when former Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached in 2012, there was no hearing required. It went through the usual process — no extra steps were needed.
Now, the Supreme Court says:
-
There has to be a full hearing.
-
It cannot be done quickly.
-
These extra steps were never part of the process before.
That’s confusing, because it changes the rules mid-game — and people don’t think that’s fair.
🧨 The Risk of Fake Complaints
Now here’s the part that could really cause trouble.
Professor Tamase and the legal group 1Sambayan warned:
If anyone — even someone who doesn’t really mean it — files a sham complaint (a fake or weak one), it could start the one-year timer.
That means:
-
Real complaints could be blocked for an entire year,
-
Even if the House ignores the fake ones, the time still starts ticking.
That could protect wrongdoers and stop real justice.
🛑 But the Supreme Court Responds
The Supreme Court did try to explain this part. They said:
“Sham complaints — like those that aren’t signed properly or not verified — should be thrown out immediately.”
Also, if a complaint isn’t endorsed by a real member of Congress within a reasonable time, it won’t count and won’t start the one-year clock.
Still, legal experts say that might not be enough to stop people from trying to play the system.
🏛️ What Happens Now?
The House of Representatives says they’re going to appeal the decision. That means they’re asking the Court to think again and maybe change their mind.
Until then, many are worried that this decision could lead to more drama in government — where real complaints are blocked by fake ones, and accountability becomes harder to achieve.
🎯 What This Means for Kids Like You:
Even kids know what’s fair and unfair.
This story is about making sure people in power follow the rules and are held responsible when they do something wrong — just like anyone else. But when the rules are changed suddenly, or used unfairly, it becomes harder to tell right from wrong.
That’s why many grown-ups — especially lawyers and judges — are now debating what’s really fair… and what could hurt our country in the long run.
