New delhi: President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. clarified on Friday that the Supreme Court's decision concerning the shelved impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte addressed only procedural issues and did not delve into the substance of the complaint. "Let me clarify. The merits of the case were not examined by the Supreme Court. This does not decide the merits of the case. It just talked about procedure. So the procedure was faulty, was lacking. So 'yun ang (that is the) assessment ng (of the) Supreme Court," Marcos explained to reporters accompanying the Philippine delegation during his state visit to India. "It has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the impeachment."

According to Philippines News Agency, Marcos emphasized that there has been no trial, and the impeachment complaint's contents were never debated upon. "Again, there has been no trial. So the merits of the case have not been examined, tried, adjudicated, argued, discussed. So, accountability just doesn't come into it. People have to understand, it is a procedural question," he stated. Marcos further elaborated, "Sinabi, mali 'yung date, hindi tama ang paggagawa ng House. Walang kinalaman 'doon sa laman ng impeachment complaint. Kung hindi, kung paano 'yung pagkahandle ng impeachment (They said the date was wrong, the way the House did it was not correct. It had nothing to do with the contents of the impeachment complaint, but with how the impeachment was handled)."

The President reiterated that the executive branch had no involvement in the impeachment proceedings. "I keep telling you, the executive has no role in this. The President has no role. I'm an impeachable officer. I cannot involve myself in any of this. So, it's really the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the House," he said.

The Senate had recently approved the motion of Senator Rodante Marcoleta to 'adhere to the immediately executory decision' of the SC en banc dated July 25, 2025, effectively shelving the impeachment complaint. A separate motion by Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III to table Marcoleta's motion was defeated by a vote of 19 affirmative to 5 negative.

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision concluded that the complaint breached the Constitution's one-year bar rule and failed to provide due process to the respondent, leading the tribunal to declare the proceedings invalid from the beginning.