The filing of the first petition in a second set of impeachment complaints against former President Rodrigo Duterte has once again stirred headlines, talk shows, and social media timelines. Predictably, the noise is loud. But constitutionally speaking, the answer is not.

Impeachment is not a weapon of persistence. It is a strict constitutional process, bound by rules that cannot be bent by repetition, emotion, or political pressure.

What was filed — and what was not

According to reports, a new impeachment petition was submitted as part of a second batch of complaints. Supporters frame it as “accountability renewed.” Critics call it harassment by paperwork. But neither framing matters as much as constitutional reality.

The Constitution does not ask how many times a complaint is filed.
It asks whether the process itself is valid.

The one-year bar still applies

Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution, impeachment proceedings against the same official cannot be initiated more than once within a one-year period.

This rule exists for a reason:

• To prevent harassment through serial complaints

• To protect stability in governance

• To ensure impeachment remains a grave remedy, not a political pastime

Filing again does not reset the clock. Repackaging does not cure defects. Renaming does not bypass the rule.

Filing is not victory

A critical point often ignored in headlines: any citizen may file an impeachment complaint, but not every complaint survives constitutional scrutiny.

Filing is easy.
Validation is hard.

And history shows that complaints filed without regard for constitutional timing and process collapse not because of personalities, but because of law.

Why this keeps happening

There is a growing tendency to treat impeachment as a messaging tool — a way to signal virtue, outrage, or political alignment. But impeachment is not a press release.

When legal processes are used for optics rather than substance, they weaken institutions instead of strengthening them.

Bottom line

This new filing may generate clicks, debates, and temporary momentum. But the Constitution is unmoved by volume.

Accountability is essential.
But accountability without discipline becomes abuse.

In the end, the Constitution does not reward persistence.
It rewards compliance.