10/06/2025
THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAD VIOLATED ITS RULES OF IMPEACHMENT WHEN HE FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY REFER THE THREE (3) IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS TO THE SPEAKER AND WITHIN TEN DAYS UPON RECEIPT THEREOF SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS, THEN WITHIN 3 DAYS THEREAFTER BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE.
ONE-YEAR BAN RULE IN IMPEACHMENT
BY JUDGE MARLO CAMPANILLA
Three impeachment complaints were filed with the office of the Secretary General by members of the House of Representatives against Sarah Duterte on December 2, 4, and 5, 2024, respectively. Under the Impeachment Rules of the House of Representatives, the office of the Secretary General shall immediately refer impeachment complaints to the Speaker. Then the Speaker shall include them in the Order of Business within ten (10) session days from receipt and refer them to the Committee on Justice within three (3) session days thereafter. However, the office of the Secretary-General did not refer three impeachment complaints to the Speaker, in violation of the said Rules. A fourth impeachment complaint was filed on February 5, 2025. Since the fourth impeachment complaint was supported by more than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives, seven Articles of Impeachment were filed with the Senate on February 5, 2025.
Question No. 1: The House of Representatives filed seven (7) Articles of Impeachment against Sara Duterte. Can an impeachable officer be charged with multiple impeachable offenses?
For the bar exam and academic purposes, the answer must be in the affirmative. Section 3 (3), Article XI of the Constitution uses the term “Articles of Impeachment.” The plural form of this term shows that the Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses, with each charge representing an article of impeachment, assembled in one set known as the "Articles of Impeachment." It, therefore, follows that an impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense. (Guiterrez vs. the House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011)
Question no. 2. Is the filing of the 4th complaint, on February 5, 2025, a violation of the one-year ban rule?
There are two academic views.
First view: Under Section 3 (5), Article 11 of the Constitution, “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” In Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, it was held that:
“Initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period.”
Three impeachment complaints, which were filed on December 2, 4, and 5, 2024, were not referred to the House Committee on Justice. Without a referral, the impeachment proceedings had not yet been initiated on December 2, 4, and 5, 2024. Without the initiation of impeachment proceedings on December 2, 4, and 5, 2024, the fourth complaint could be validly filed on February 5, 2025, without violating the one-year ban rule.
Second view: Under Article XI, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution, a verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.
However, the Speaker of the House failed to include the three impeachment complaints within ten session days from December 2, 4, and 5, 2024, the dates of their filing, and refer them to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter in violation of the Constitution. In sum, the Speaker violated the Constitution to circumvent the constitutional provision on the one-year ban rule. Hence, the filing of the fourth complaint on February 5, 2025 indirectly violated the one-year ban rule.
The discussion is purely academic and for the benefits of law students and bar examinees. Please refrain from making political comment.
