Impeachment showdown: One-complaint-one-year rule explained, how removing top officials really works in the Philippines

Manila: Filipinos are about see a dramatic showdown: an unprecedented scenario potentially impeaching both the President and Vice President simultaneously.

In theory, impeachment proceedings serve to uphold democratic values, and form an important safeguard for truth, justice, and "we the people" type of governance.

Filing an impeachment case against the President or Vice President, or any high-ranking official (i.e. Supreme Court Justice), can have consequences beyond accountability.

Constitutional duty

Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives Justice Committee members are duty-bound and must be ready to tackle impeachment complaints. 

Currently, there are impeachment cases lodged against both President Ferdinand "BBM" Marcos Jr and Vice President Sara "Inday" Duterte.

On Monday, January 19, 2026, the first impeachment complaint was filed against BBM, citing several “grounds”, including graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust as grounds.

Other allegations: surrendering former president Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC); failure to “veto” unprogrammed appropriations and other unconstitutional provisions in the General Appropriations Act; alleged kickbacks and ghost projects; and claims questioning the President’s fitness to serve, including alleged drug addiction. 

Impeachment complaints had also been filed in 2025 against Vice President Sara Duterte. A motion for reconsideration has been filed and is currently awaiting the Supreme Court after the country's top court declared the process unconstitutional on technicality (two impeachment complaints filed within the same year, which the 1987 Charter specifically prohibits).

The impeachment process

Here’s a breakdown of the key points of the impeachment process.

Under Philippine law, impeachment is the power of the House of Representatives (Lower House of Congress) to formally charge a serving government official with an impeachable offence.

After being impeached by the House, the official is then tried in the Senate. If convicted, the official is either removed from office or censured.

Impeachment, followed by conviction, is often the only way to remove a sitting high-ranking official.

Impeachment vs indicment

While "impeachment" is often used to refer to the entire process of removing an official from office, it only formally refers to the indictment stage in the 318-member House of Representatives, not the trial stage in the Senate.

Under the 1987 Charter, an official can be impeached if one-third (106) of the House of Representatives votes in favour.

Since it takes only a "simple majority" to set the agenda or to adjourn the House, it can be difficult for a minority of one third to bring a vote and impeach an official.

Once referred to Congress, a single complaint can freeze all other impeachment attempts for a year — a Constitutional provision that carries a major political impact.

Specific steps

Rep. Gerville Luistro, Chair of House Justice Committee, explained that after an impeachment complaint is received by the House Secretary General, it must be immediately transmitted to the Speaker's office, then referred to the plenary within 10 session days.

Then, it must be referred to the Justice Committee within 3 session days.

Two modes of filing impeachment complaint

In general, there are two modes for filing an impeachment complaint, specifically in the context of a potential second complaint against the Vice President:

First mode: Filed by a private individual and sponsored by a House member, or filed by the House member himself. This mode requires mandatory referral to the Justice Committee.

Second mode: Filed by at least one-third of the members of the House. This "express lane" mode historically allowed for direct transmission to the Senate without referral to the Justice Committee. This mode allows bypassing the need for referral to the Justice Committee.

Prohibition period trigger

The referral to the House Justice Committee is crucial. This referral completes the "initiation process", and then triggers a one-year prohibition period for filing succeeding impeachment complaints against the same impeachable official.

This comes from Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution, which states:

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

So the big question over the years has been: When is an impeachment proceeding considered “initiated”? 

Once one complaint is formally taken up, everyone else must wait one year.

In plain English: the Article XI, Section 3 (5) rule means: Once an impeachment complaint is officially sent to the House Justice Committee, the Constitution treats impeachment as having legally kicked off — and from that moment, the House is barred for one year from starting any new impeachment case against the same official.

Justice Committee's role

The Justice Committee determines the “sufficiency in form and substance” of the complaint, whether there's sufficient basis for impeachment, conducts hearings with complainants and witnesses, and determines “probable cause”. 

Their decision is then submitted to the plenary for approval.

Multiple complaints and consolidation: If multiple impeachment complaints are filed and referred to the Justice Committee by the plenary, consolidation is possible, in oder to avoid re-triggering the one-year prohibition rule.

Reason behind one-complaint-one-year rule

Framers of the 1987 Constitution wanted to prevent: harassment through repeated impeachment complaints, political destabilisation, endless pressure on impeachable officials (President, VP, SC Justices, etc.)

The mode of filing (private individual/sponsored by House member vs. one-third of House members) also asignificantly impacts the process.

Second impeachment against VP Sara Duterte

Sara Duterte became the first VP of the Philippines to be impeached. She continues to hold office as no final verdict was made by the Senate.

Rep. Luistro, in an interview with DZMM Teleradyo, touched on the complexities of a second impeachment complaint against the Vice President, especially given a pending motion for reconsideration on a previous unconstitutional declaration by the Supreme Court, that her impeachment violated the one-complaint-one-year rule.

'Uncertainty' surrounding 2nd impeachment case vs VP

The uncertainty surrounding a second impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte stems from a previous impeachment complaint against theVP was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, there is a pending motion for reconsideration on that Supreme Court decision which has not yet been resolved. 

This leaves a question as to which rule to follow.

The House of Representatives now faces a dilemma, as per Luistro: Whether to apply the Supreme Court's decision (which is not yet final due to the pending motion for reconsideration) or to follow what is provided in the constitution and existing House rules.

If they choose the latter, the House speaker notes they "might face the same predicament of being declared unconstitutional again".