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

When Justice Meets Politics: Lessons from Corona’s Trial and Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Battle

 *Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD

 

I. A Nation on Trial—Then and Now

I still remember the day Renato Corona took the stand. I even wrote a blog about my reflection on the trial entitled “Force to Resign or Impeach.” The Senate was full, the TV was on in nearly every Filipino home, and people were discussing the Constitution over coffee for the first time in years. Corona, the Chief Justice of the land, was being impeached—live, raw, and historic. In 2012, we were observing the full manifestation of democracy. But it wasn’t just about the trial. The clash between power and principle shaped our identity as a people.

In 2025, the country finds itself engulfed in yet another constitutional crisis. Vice President Sara Duterte finds herself at the center of this constitutional crisis. Complaints have been filed. Questions about confidential funds, political overreach, and misuse of power fill the headlines. But just as quickly as the storm gathered, the Supreme Court stepped in with a ruling: No more impeachment cases for the VP this year. The reason? The Constitution is clear—only one impeachment proceeding per official per year.

The ruling caused significant ripples. While some felt vindicated, others expressed disapproval. But as someone who has lived through both moments—Corona’s downfall and Duterte’s legal shield—I believe it’s time we ask the more profound question: What are we really learning as a nation from all this?

 

II. Lesson One: The Law Must Always Come First

During Corona’s trial, many believed he was being targeted for political reasons—especially with his ties to then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and his involvement in the Hacienda Luisita decision. However, the crucial point was that he neglected to reveal millions in his SALN. That wasn’t hearsay. It was a constitutional violation. So, regardless of his politics, he was removed.

That trial taught us something painful but powerful: The Constitution should matter more than the person.

With Vice President Duterte, the story is more complex. Multiple complaints were filed, but in July 2025, the Supreme Court reminded everyone of a simple truth: Only one impeachment case can proceed per year against the same official. That rule wasn’t made to protect the powerful—it was designed to protect the process from being abused.

Even if you believe Sara Duterte should respond to more allegations, we must adhere to the legal process. Otherwise, we risk turning impeachment into a circus, not a safeguard.

 

III. Lesson Two: It’s Not About Noise—It’s About Proof

I won’t forget how messy the Corona prosecution team was at the beginning. They had media backing, but their case was riddled with unverified documents, confusing testimonies, and emotional arguments. If the defense hadn’t stumbled in key areas, the outcome might have been different. They eventually won—but barely.

Now, with Duterte’s case, we’re seeing something similar. Complaints were filed rapidly, some overlapping, some rushed. Despite the sincere intention, the case could not stand without solid evidence and appropriate legal framing.

So here’s the lesson: Impeachment is not a popularity contest. It’s a legal battle. And if we want justice, we need to fight with precision—not passion alone.

 

IV. Lesson Three: Watchdogs Still Matter

When Corona was on trial, people were glued to their TVs. Senate sessions were broadcast live, and for the first time, civic organizations, lawyers, and even tricycle drivers were dissecting legal arguments. The trial didn’t just put a man on the stand—it educated a nation.

In 2025, it’s different. Social media has taken over, and with it comes noise—lots of it. Misinformation rapidly disseminates, trolls stifle legitimate inquiries, and political spin obscures the truth. Still, watchdogs like the IBP, the UP Law Center, and some brave journalists have stepped up to explain the Supreme Court ruling and clarify what’s at stake.

We need them. Institutions alone cannot sustain democracy; citizen vigilance is essential.

 

V. Lesson Four: An Impeachment Trial Isn’t the Finish Line

After Corona was removed, many believed the judiciary would be instantly cleaner and the political system magically more honest. That didn’t happen. SALN compliance saw a brief improvement, but did systemic reform occur? Not really.

Now, in Duterte’s case, even though her impeachment has been halted, we must ask: what happens next? Do we go back to silence? Or do we push for changes in how confidential funds are audited? Shouldn’t this event be the moment we talk seriously about transparency in executive spending?

Regardless of the outcome, the impeachment process should instigate long-term reform, not just temporary noise.

 

VI. Lesson Five: Power Will Always Try to Influence Justice

One thing that worried people during Corona’s trial was the apparent pressure from then-President Noynoy Aquino’s camp. Many believed the executive branch wanted Corona out to ensure the Aquino administration’s legislative agenda—including the handling of Hacienda Luisita—would go unchallenged.

Today, the concern is reversed. The Duterte family, after all, appointed several justices in the Supreme Court. So when the Court ruled that no further impeachment complaints could proceed this year against the VP, some people cried foul. They asked, “Is the judiciary still independent?”

To be clear, the Supreme Court was technically right. The Constitution does say what it says. But public trust isn’t just built on legality—it’s built on perception. If people believe the system is rigged, then even a correct decision feels unjust.

So what’s the lesson? Power must always be watched. Closely. No matter who wields it.

 

VII. Final Reflection: Our Role as Citizens

At the heart of both the Corona and Duterte impeachments is one truth: This isn’t just about them. It’s about us.

It’s about how much we care about due process. About how well we know our Constitution. About whether we’re willing to hold power accountable without bias. About whether we’ll stand for justice even when it’s inconvenient.

The Supreme Court’s ruling may have put a pause on the Duterte impeachment for now, but that doesn’t mean the conversation is over. In fact, it should only be beginning. If there’s wrongdoing, let’s gather facts—not Facebook posts. Let’s prepare airtight cases—not viral hashtags. Let’s build institutions that don’t need heroes—just laws that are obeyed.

Because at the end of the day, whether we’re talking about a Chief Justice or a Vice President, it’s not about who sits in power—it’s about what kind of country we want to be.

 

References:

• Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2025, July 15). G.R. No. 267891: Decision on Impeachment Complaints Against Vice President Sara Duterte. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph

• La Viña, T. L. (2012). 8 Lessons from the Corona impeachment trial. https://tonylavina.wordpress.com

• Pangalangan, P. C. (2012). Corona’s impeachment and the judicial-political crossroads. Philippine Law Journal, 86(1), 1–12.

• Rappler. (2012). Corona found guilty by the Senate. https://www.rappler.com

• BenarNews. (2025). Calls for Duterte’s impeachment ignite political firestorm. https://www.benarnews.org

• Tribune. (2025). Sara Duterte impeachment: Was it rushed? https://tribune.net.ph

 __________________________________________________________________________

*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