The political drama surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment has entered a new, uncertain phase, as both the House of Representatives and the Senate navigate the fallout from a landmark Supreme Court decision. The saga, which has gripped the Philippines for months, now hinges on the Supreme Court’s response to multiple motions for reconsideration, leaving the fate of the impeachment trial in limbo and raising questions about the country’s constitutional process.
On August 9, 2025, the House of Representatives made its position clear: it will abide by the Supreme Court’s final decision regarding the impeachment case against Vice President Duterte. This assurance came after the high court’s unanimous 13-0 ruling that the Articles of Impeachment were unconstitutional, citing the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and a violation of due process rights. According to GMA Integrated News, House prosecution spokesperson Atty. Antonio Bucoy stated, “The House will not cause the constitutional crisis. The reason, the catalyst for the constitutional crisis will never be caused by the House.”
Deputy Speaker Janette Garin echoed Bucoy’s sentiments, emphasizing that the lower chamber’s duty to the people does not extend to bypassing accountability or undermining the Supreme Court’s authority. “A constitutional crisis should not have a place in a… I think the Philippines is in the top 2 happiest people in the world, so talagang hindi siya dapat na mangyari,” she said, underscoring the House’s commitment to legal and constitutional norms.
The House’s motion for reconsideration, however, remains at the heart of the current standoff. The House argued that the fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by 215 House members, met the constitutional threshold to proceed directly to the Senate for trial, bypassing committee deliberations. “The motion for reconsideration is not for criticism or rejection. It is to respectfully ask the Supreme Court to revisit its decision, which we believe is wrong from A to Z,” Bucoy explained, as reported by GMA Integrated News.
Meanwhile, the Senate has taken a procedural step that further complicates the situation: archiving the articles of impeachment. As Rappler details, archiving does not equate to dismissing the case outright. Instead, it removes the impeachment articles from the Senate’s active docket, effectively putting the case into a state of suspended animation. University of the Philippines constitutional law professor John Molo explained, “A reasonable interpretation is that the archival of the Articles of Impeachment means the Senate shall take no further action. It also seems that several senators are open to the possibility that the SC could change its mind. So archival seems like a way for them to hedge.”
This move, which passed in the Senate with a decisive 19-4-1 vote, reflects a strong inclination among senators to pause the proceedings, but not to close the door entirely. Professor Paolo Tamase, also from UP, described the case as “functionally dead” for now, given the overwhelming vote to archive and the procedural hurdles that would need to be cleared should the Supreme Court reverse its decision. “If there is a 19-4-1 vote, essentially to put this case to sleep, to a deep sleep, then there’s no guarantee that enough senators will vote to revive it if the Supreme Court says it made a mistake and reverses its decision,” Tamase told Rappler.
Despite this, archiving has had a significant—if subtle—impact on the legal landscape. By not dismissing the case outright, the Senate has ensured that the Supreme Court’s review of the motions for reconsideration remains relevant. As former Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio noted, “The SC cannot now deny the MR on the ground of mootness. The SC has to decide the pending MR on the merits. The SC will have to confront the glaring factual errors in its decision, as well as its violation of the doctrine of prospective overruling when the SC applied retroactively its decision abandoning the Francisco and Gutierrez decisions.”
Three motions for reconsideration are currently before the Supreme Court: one from the individuals behind the original impeachment complaint, one from the House of Representatives itself, and a third from the 1Sambayan coalition, which includes prominent legal figures Carpio-Morales and Carpio. The 1Sambayan coalition has also petitioned the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments, seeking a more robust airing of the issues at stake. However, the high court has so far relied on written submissions from Duterte, Mindanao lawyers, and Congress, rather than convening oral arguments.
Archiving, as a procedural tool, is not unique to this case. The Senate borrowed the concept from criminal trials, where cases are archived if a suspect cannot be found. In the past, impeachment proceedings, such as those against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, were also archived—though in Gutierrez’s case, the articles were archived after her resignation, effectively rendering the process moot.
What happens next depends almost entirely on the Supreme Court’s response to the pending motions. If the Supreme Court were to grant reconsideration and reverse its earlier decision, the Senate would still need to take an affirmative vote to revive the case from the archives before any trial could proceed. As Tamase explained, “Because it has been archived, there needs to be a motion to revive the articles of impeachment. This motion needs to be approved by the majority.” Conversely, if the Supreme Court denies the appeals, the case will remain in the archives, functionally ending the impeachment effort—at least for now.
For the House of Representatives, the next steps are a waiting game. “Let’s wait and see what happens in the next months… I leave it to the members of the 20th Congress… Kasi sa ngayon lahat naguusap usap… These are things that we need to balance and we need to discuss…and come up with concrete statements,” Garin said, reflecting the uncertainty that pervades the process. Bucoy, for his part, remains hopeful: “We will not give up just because the case has been archived. There is still a chance that we will be heard. As the Speaker said: ‘The House will not bow down.’ We are not giving up, hoping the Supreme Court will see the light and the Senate will follow.”
For now, Vice President Duterte’s impeachment case remains in a state of suspended animation—neither fully alive nor entirely dead. With only a few months left for the Supreme Court to reach a decision, the nation watches closely, aware that the outcome could set important precedents for future impeachment proceedings and the balance of power between the country’s branches of government.
As the political maneuvering continues, one thing is clear: the resolution of this high-profile case will have lasting implications for Philippine democracy and the rule of law.
