Another day, another headline floating the idea that the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte may be refiled “as is.”

Let’s slow this down—because this is where legal precision matters more than political wishful thinking.

What is being claimed?

Former lawmaker Antonio Ridon suggested that the impeachment complaint could be refiled without changes once the one-year bar lapses. On paper, it sounds procedural. In reality, it raises a constitutional red flag.

What the Supreme Court already settled

The Supreme Court did not merely dismiss the earlier impeachment. It ruled—with finality—that the process violated the Constitution.

That distinction matters.

The issue was never who was impeached.
The issue was how the impeachment was initiated.

And when the Court says a process is unconstitutional, repeating the same process does not magically cure the defect.

“As is” doesn’t mean “as valid”

Refiling “as is” assumes that time alone fixes constitutional violations. It doesn’t.

Impeachment is not a Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V exercise.
It is a strict, disciplined constitutional mechanism.

The one-year bar is not a technical loophole. It is a safeguard against harassment, political destabilization, and weaponized accountability.

The bigger picture

What we’re seeing now is not a legal necessity—it’s political recycling.

Instead of accountability anchored in evidence and due process, the same playbook is being dusted off, hoping repetition will succeed where constitutionality failed.

But constitutions don’t get tired.
They don’t bend to persistence.
They don’t negotiate with impatience.

Bottom line

You don’t revive a void act by repeating it.

The Supreme Court already drew the line.
Any future action must respect that boundary—or face the same fate.