By Jose Cielito Reganit | Philippine News Agency
The House of Representatives on Monday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to revisit and correct its ruling that nullified the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
“With full respect for the Constitution, in defense of institutional balance, and in the name of the Filipino people, the House of Representatives has filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court,” House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez said in a statement.
“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty. We do not challenge the authority of the Court. We seek only to preserve the rightful role of the House—the voice of the people—in the process of accountability,” he added.
He emphasized that the appeal was filed to correct factual misreadings and retroactive procedural burdens imposed by the SC, which he said undermine both the Constitution and the people’s right to demand accountability from high officials.
“Let us be clear. The Constitution says ‘the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.’ That power is not shared. Not subject to pre-approval. And not conditional,” Romualdez said.
“Yet in G.R. No. 278353, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, based on a misreading of facts and a retroactive imposition of new rules,” he added.
He reiterated that the appeal is not to provoke a clash of institutions, but to prevent the erosion of the people’s right to accountability.
Romualdez underscored that the House acted within the 10-session day limit provided in the Constitution when it transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint on Feb. 5.
“On February 5, 2025, the House transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint—filed and signed by 215 Members—to the Senate. Only after this transmittal did we archive the earlier three complaints. That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four,” he explained.
“Even the Court’s own precedent — Francisco v. House—supports this: Only one impeachment can be initiated, and that initiation begins with a one-third endorsement or a referral. That is exactly what the House did,” he added.
That complaint was duly verified and endorsed by more than one-third of all Members, making it the sole basis for trial.
Romualdez also addressed the due process issue raised by the Court when it said Duterte was not allowed an opportunity to respond.
“The Court also said the Vice President was denied due process because she was not furnished a copy or given a chance to respond,” he said. “But nowhere in the Constitution is that required before transmittal. In fact, in all past impeachments, the trial and the right to be heard take place in the Senate.”
Romualdez said no branch of government should dictate the boundaries of its accountability, and this is especially true when the very nature of the dispute involves the process by which such officials may be held answerable to the people.
“The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Its wisdom is deep. Its authority is real. But its members—like the President and the Vice President—are also impeachable officers,” he noted.
“When the Court lays down rules for how it, or others like it, may be impeached, it puts itself in the dangerous position of writing conditions that may shield itself from future accountability,” he said. “That is not how checks and balances work.”
Romualdez said the issue at hand is not merely legal but one that strikes at the foundation of accountability in a democratic system.
“We filed this Motion for Reconsideration not to provoke, but to protect. Not to assert supremacy, but to restore balance,” he said. “Because if impeachments can be blocked by misunderstood facts or rules made after the fact, then accountability is not upheld: It is denied.”
Romualdez said standing by the mandate of the House is not a threat to democracy but a defense of it.
“To dissent is not to defy. To demand accountability is not to destabilize. To insist on constitutional integrity is not to weaken democracy, it is to strengthen it,” he said.
“We speak now not because it is easy, but because it is necessary. The House will not bow in silence.”
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the House of Representatives, filed the petition via the Philippine Judiciary Portal.
In the 70-page motion for reconsideration, the House said it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate to try the case as stated in the Constitution.
“The House is not asking this Honorable Court to favor any one political result. Indeed, there are no convictions or acquittals at play yet, as the Senate has not even begun to conduct the trial-proper. It only asks that this Honorable Court allow Congress to perform the duties the Constitution asks of both its chambers—to initiate an impeachment proceeding for the House, and to try the same, for the Senate,” it said.
“The House asks this Honorable Court not to stand with a certain political faction or another, but to uphold the Constitution, which gives life to all the institutions of government, and with the people, who in turn, are the true sovereign, and to whom all accountability, trust, and power, are owed. Wherefore, premises considered, Respondents respectfully pray that the Honorable Court reverse the immediately executory nature of its July 25, 2025 Decision, and, after due proceedings, reconsider the same and dismiss the Petitions, for lack of merit.” (With a report from Benjamin Pulta / PNA)
