Did Congress Just Impeach Sara Duterte Without a Roll Call Vote? That’s a Big Problem.

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 11, 2025

IMAGINE this: Over 200 lawmakers sign off on an impeachment complaint—but when it comes time to vote, there’s no official record of who said yes or no. That’s exactly what happened in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, where critics allege the House skipped the required roll call vote. Could this oversight unravel the entire case?”

That’s not a minor technicality. It’s a major procedural violation that could torpedo the entire impeachment process. So, let’s break down the legal mess lawmakers just created for themselves.

The One-Third Rule: Did It Kill the Roll Call Vote?

First, the House leadership isn’t entirely wrong in saying that when more than one-third of House members sign an impeachment complaint, it automatically moves forward—skipping the usual committee review process. That’s straight out of Article XI, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which states that an impeachment complaint filed by at least one-third of House members is “deemed automatically referred to the Senate.”

But—and this is a big but—that provision doesn’t override the roll call vote requirement.

The Constitution makes it clear that while a one-third signature eliminates committee review, the House must still formally approve the Articles of Impeachment through a plenary vote.
And per the House Rules on Impeachment, that vote must be conducted via roll call, ensuring transparency and individual accountability.

In other words: Just because the impeachment complaint skipped committee review, that doesn’t mean the House can skip voting requirements altogether.

House Defenses for Skipping the Roll Call Vote—And Why They’re Weak

Realizing they might have botched the procedure, House leaders are scrambling to justify their actions. Let’s take a look at their best (and worst) defenses—and why none of them are particularly convincing.

1. “Alternative Voting Methods Are Just as Good”

The House might argue that a voice vote, electronic tally, or standing vote is just as valid as a roll call. If transparency is the goal, then hey—so long as votes were counted, who cares how it was done?

Why This Fails:

Because rules are rules. The impeachment guidelines don’t just say, “Vote however you feel like.” They require a roll call—meaning each member’s vote is individually recorded.
Courts hate procedural shortcuts in impeachment cases. In Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives (2003), the Supreme Court made it clear that impeachment rules must be strictly followed.

This argument? Dead on arrival.

2. “Roll Call Votes Only Apply to Certain Stages”

Maybe the roll call requirement only applies to final Senate conviction votes—not House impeachment votes?

Nice try, but no.

The impeachment rules explicitly require a roll call in the plenary session before transmitting the case to the Senate.
The point of a roll call vote isn’t just ceremony—it’s about ensuring accountability. Each legislator’s vote must be recorded, preventing secret deals and political pressure.

Skipping a roll call isn’t a technicality—it’s a fundamental violation of due process.

3. “We Had to Move Fast—It Was Urgent”

Another classic defense: time was of the essence, and following every procedural step wasn’t practical. After all, impeachment is a fast-moving political game.

Why This Fails:

Urgency doesn’t let you rewrite the rules. If lawmakers could ignore constitutional requirements whenever things got “urgent,” we’d have legal anarchy.
The Supreme Court has never accepted “urgency” as an excuse for procedural violations in impeachment. See Lacson v. Executive Secretary (2003)—where the Court shot down arguments that procedural shortcuts were justified by necessity.

Speed never trumps due process.

4. “The One-Third Rule Overrides Everything Else”

This one is the most creative defense: Since more than one-third of lawmakers signed the complaint, they’re essentially pre-approving the impeachment, so why bother with a roll call vote?

Why This Fails:

The one-third rule only replaces the committee process—not the House plenary vote.
The Constitution is clear that the House still needs to officially approve the Articles of Impeachment before sending them to the Senate.
If the one-third rule meant no vote was needed, the Constitution would explicitly say so. It doesn’t.

This argument is a massive stretch—one that the Supreme Court is unlikely to buy.

5. “No One Has Standing to Challenge This”

Finally, House leaders might argue that no one has legal standing to challenge the skipped roll call vote—except maybe Duterte herself. And if she doesn’t file a case, who cares?

Why This Fails:

Impeachment is a matter of public interest, and Philippine courts have repeatedly held that citizens, legislators, and even taxpayers can challenge unconstitutional acts in impeachment cases.
In Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court ruled that procedural violations in impeachment can be reviewed—so this issue is absolutely fair game for judicial intervention.

In short: Yes, this can be challenged. And it probably will be.

The House’s Actions, The Nation’s Future: Why This Procedural Violation Matters

At its core, impeachment is a constitutional safeguard—a way to remove public officials while still respecting due process. By skipping the roll call vote, the House has undermined its own legitimacy and handed Duterte a ready-made legal challenge to invalidate the entire process.

This isn’t just about Sara Duterte—it’s about the rule of law. If Congress can ignore impeachment procedures whenever politically convenient, what stops them from doing it again? What happens when the next impeachment case arises?

The House’s reckless shortcut sets a dangerous precedent—one that could boomerang back on them in future impeachment cases.

Final Take: What Should Happen Next?

For the House of Representatives:

Fix the mess. Conduct the roll call vote properly before sending the impeachment to the Senate. Otherwise, you risk having it thrown out in court.
Respect the rules—or lose credibility. If Congress can’t follow its own impeachment procedures, why should the public take impeachment seriously?

For Sara Duterte’s Legal Team:

Challenge the procedural violation ASAP. The roll call vote issue gives you a strong case to invalidate the impeachment.
Frame this as a due process violation. The Supreme Court loves procedural integrity—argue that skipping the roll call undermines democratic safeguards.

For the Philippine Public:

Demand transparency. The whole point of a roll call vote is to hold lawmakers accountable. If they refuse to publicly record their votes, what are they hiding?

Final Verdict

The House bungled the process—and that mistake could be fatal for the impeachment case. Skipping the roll call vote was a reckless move, and unless it’s corrected, expect this case to end up in the Supreme Court—where Duterte just might get the last laugh.

Congress played fast and loose with the rules. Now they might have to pay the price.