When Law Meets Emotion: Understanding the One-Year Impeachment Ban Against VP Sara Duterte

By Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

There is a quiet tension in the air. This is the kind of tension you feel when people seek answers, but the system responds, "Not now." Many Filipinos are still asking across social media, on TV panels, and in cafes and sari-sari stores, “Why was the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte thrown out? "Why wasn’t she made to face the Senate?” These questions come from a place of deep concern, and I respect them.

In fact, I begin this reflection by saying: I fully sympathize with the millions of Filipinos who believe that Vice President Sara Duterte should have had her day in the Senate to respond to the serious accusations filed against her—allegations of misused intelligence funds, unexplained assets, even links to extrajudicial killings and open political defiance toward the President and House leadership. These are no small matters. These accusations strike deeply at the foundation of public trust.

And if you ask me, I too want these questions answered.

But here is the uncomfortable truth: Wanting something—even justice—doesn’t provide us the right to break the very rules that make justice possible.

The Constitution Is Not Optional

Our emotions may be loud, but the Constitution is louder. The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly states in Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5:

“No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

That’s not a suggestion. It’s not flexible. It’s binding law. It applies to everyone—even to those we want to see tried, even to those whose guilt we suspect, and even to those we politically oppose.

So when the Supreme Court ruled last July 25, 2025, that the impeachment case against VP Sara was unconstitutional because it violated that one-year ban, the Court wasn’t protecting her as a person—it was protecting the Constitution as a principle. And that’s something we all must defend, even when it disappoints us.

It’s Okay to Feel Frustrated—But It’s Not Okay to Ignore the Law

Let’s be honest. It’s deeply frustrating. It feels like the public was robbed of the chance to hear the truth. After all, what better stage is there than the Senate, where all evidence can be laid bare?

Many people are asking, “Why not let her speak? Why not clear her name or validate our deepest fears? The answer is simple but painful: we can’t just bypass the Constitution because we’re emotionally or politically ready for a verdict.

The law says one impeachment attempt per year. That’s it. No workarounds. No shortcuts. And the fourth complaint filed by the House fell within that one-year period.

You can argue about its fairness, yes. But you can’t say it’s unconstitutional to obey the Constitution.

Sympathy Must Walk Hand in Hand with Discipline

Let me be clear: Feeling sympathy for those who seek justice is not the same as endorsing constitutional shortcuts. In fact, the truest form of public service is the ability to say, “Yes, I hear you. Yes, your concern is valid. But we must wait—not because we want to protect the powerful, but because we must protect the process.”

If you rush a legal proceeding, you provide its results a shaky foundation. And that’s the real danger: when process is ignored, truth becomes vulnerable to revision, manipulation, and rejection. Let us not forget that.

Could the Senate Have Helped?

Now let’s discuss a moment that could have changed everything: February 2025.

Many people hoped the Senate would convene as an impeachment court during that time. Some believed it would finally offer VP Sara Duterte the platform to explain herself—to present her evidence and perhaps even clear her name.

But the Senate didn’t convene.

Senate President Francis Escudero cited legal limitations. The House had transmitted the articles of impeachment, yes—but Congress was not in session. And according to procedure, only during regular or special sessions can the Senate try an impeached official. That meant waiting until the regular session in June. And by that time, the one-year ban had already been triggered, giving the Supreme Court firm grounds to halt the trial.

Frustrating? Yes. Is it also a legal matter? Absolutely.

This Was Never Just About the Truth—It Was About 2028

There's a growing consensus that this impeachment case may have been less about truth and more about 2028.

Let's acknowledge that we don't exist in isolation. VP Sara Duterte is widely considered a strong contender in the 2028 presidential elections. Her political influence, especially in Mindanao and among pro-Duterte circles, is undeniable. Taking her down now—through a conviction that would disqualify her from holding office forever—would have dramatically reshaped the battlefield.

Was this impeachment timed and fueled not just by evidence, but also by political fear?

Possibly.

And this is why the Constitution must stand. It’s the firewall that prevents political warfare from disguising itself as a judicial process. When impeachment is weaponized as an electoral strategy, democracy loses—not because truth is denied, but because justice is used for politics.

What Now? Is All Hope Lost?

There is still hope. The Constitution merely states, "Not now."

The one-year ban lifts by February 2026. If the evidence is strong, and if public clamor remains, a new impeachment complaint can be filed then—lawfully and constitutionally. If VP Sara Duterte truly has something to hide, she will have her reckoning. If not, she will have her vindication.

Until then, there are other venues for scrutiny. Investigative journalism. Congressional inquiries. Citizen vigilance. Transparency laws. The fight for accountability never ends—it just shifts form.

But let’s fight clean.

To Those Still Angry: I See You

I know some of you reading this still feel cheated. You’re frustrated. You wanted to see VP Sara grilled. You were eager to hear her testimony under oath. Maybe you’re convinced she’s guilty. Or maybe, like others, you just want things to be fair, open, and complete.

Your anger isn't wrong. But don’t let that anger push you into ignoring the very Constitution that protects us all.

What happens when we allow emotions to override rules? What happens when we say, “Let’s just go ahead anyway”? We risk creating a country where rules are optional—where today’s opponent becomes tomorrow’s victim.

We must be better than that. We must be principled even when it’s inconvenient. This is the challenging reality of genuine democracy.

In Closing: Principles Over Politics

The impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte was never solely about her; it served as a test of our values. Should we allow political storms to blow us off course? Or do we steadfastly adhere to the Constitution, regardless of the consequences?

Some may call this issue a legal technicality. But it’s not. It’s the bedrock of democratic accountability.

Yes, we sympathize with those who wanted to see this process through. Yes, we understand the frustration. However, the Constitution holds more weight than our emotions, and we must pay attention to it.

Ultimately, justice encompasses more than just the identity of the accused. It’s also about how we choose to seek the truth.

Let’s not compromise that.

Not now. Not ever.

_________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:
Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission