WITH a firm rebuke of impeachment fatigue and misinformation, the House Committee on Justice on Monday formally began proceedings on four impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, declaring that “the Constitution does not get tired” and that accountability cannot be set aside for convenience.
In a pointed opening statement, the committee chair, Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro of Batangas, emphasized that the House has no discretion to ignore impeachment complaints once referred.
“That mandate is not optional. It is not seasonal. It is not subject to fatigue. It is a duty,” Luistro said as the panel convened to determine the sufficiency in form of the complaints.
The hearing marks the official start of constitutional proceedings that could ultimately determine whether the Vice President will face trial in the Senate.
The committee squarely addressed claims circulating online that the impeachment complaints merely recycle accusations supposedly “dismissed” by the Supreme Court (SC).
That assertion, the panel chair said, is legally incorrect.
The SC ruling invoked by critics dealt solely with the constitutional one-year bar rule — a procedural limitation — and did not examine evidence, conduct trial, or rule on the merits of the allegations.
“It did not absolve anyone of wrongdoing,” Luistro stressed, citing the Court’s own clarification.
The message was unmistakable: a procedural bar is not a declaration of innocence, she said.
In one of the most striking lines of the session, she warned against reducing constitutional accountability to online narratives.
“Impeachment is a constitutional process — not a social media contest. Hindi hashtag ang magpapasya dito. Hindi meme ang maghahatol,” the chair said.
Luistro’s statement comes amid intense digital campaigning from opposing camps as the impeachment issue resurfaces in national discourse.
The committee confirmed that four separate complaints — spanning a combined 254 pages — were referred simultaneously:
• A 43-page complaint signed by 45 complainants citing three grounds framed as betrayal of public trust.
• A 41-page complaint signed by 17 complainants presenting five articles of impeachment.
• A 98-page complaint signed by 13 complainants alleging six grounds.
• A 72-page complaint filed by a single complainant outlining seven articles.
At this stage, Luistro clarified it is not determining guilt but examining procedural compliance: proper verification, endorsement, and conformity with constitutional and House requirements.
The committee underscored that sufficiency in form is merely the first constitutional filter. Only if the complaints pass this threshold will the panel proceed to sufficiency in substance — where the allegations must be credible on their face and anchored in impeachable offenses.
“Impeachment cannot be built on rumor,” Luistro said.
“If we refuse to examine impeachment complaints properly before us, we are not preserving stability — we are weakening accountability,” she declared.
As proceedings opened, the committee chair delivered its clearest message:
“No one is above the Constitution. Not the President. Not the Vice President. Not the Senate. Not the House of Representatives,” Luistro said.
The panel is scheduled to continue hearings to complete its determination on sufficiency in form before moving to the next constitutional phase.
For now, the House has signaled that impeachment — however politically charged — remains a constitutional obligation, not a matter of preference.
And as the committee chair put it: “Calmly. Carefully. Constitutionally. So today, we begin.”
