THE House of Representatives through the Office of the Solicitor General yesterday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its controversial ruling last month declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban on the filing of such complaint.
In a 70-page motion for reconsideration, the House questioned the imposition of “retroactive due process rules” in favor of Duterte.
It emphasized that the court deprived the House of its exclusive power to initiate cases of impeachment.
“The House categorically rejects the due process rules which the assailed decision lays down for carrying out impeachment proceedings under Article XI, Section 3 (4). The House submits that these are not called for by the Constitution and unduly interferes in the House’ own prerogatives to conduct impeachment proceedings,” said the motion which was filed electronically via the Philippine Judiciary portal.
Speaker Martin Romualdez said the House’ move to appeal the ruling is “not an act of defiance” but 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 said in a statement.
The Speaker told the SC that “to invent new rules now, and apply them retroactively, is not just unfair” but “constitutionally suspect.” “Let me say this with candor: A government of laws cannot allow any branch to become the judge of its own accountability,” he said.
“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. 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. That is not how checks and balances work,” he said.
SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting, as of press time yesterday, said they were still waiting for the hard copy of the motion for reconsideration, in accordance with the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the SC.
The House reiterated that under Article XI, Section 3 (4), filing of a complaint, backed by a third of the House membership, is the single and sufficient act to trigger transmittal to and eventually trial in the Senate.
“The House categorically rejects the due process rules which the assailed decision lays down for carrying out impeachment proceedings under Article XI, Section 3 (4). The
“The Constitution requires nothing else,” it added.
The House also stressed it is not asking the SC to favor any political result but for it to allow Congress to perform the duties the Constitution asks of both chambers — to initiate an impeachment proceeding for the House and to try the same, for the Senate.
The House also said its move is not an act of defiance or disrespect, but an exercise in constitutional stewardship and an affirmation that every branch must act with fidelity to the Constitution.
“We act not to provoke a clash of institutions, but to prevent the erosion of the people’s right to accountability,” it added.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The motion assailed the reasonings in the SC decision wherein the magistrates decreed new rules to be followed with respect to impeachment proceedings at the House and new doctrines regarding the reckoning point of the one-year bar.
It said these are new standards that the House, in any case, could not be held to prior to their creation.
“At most, the Honorable Court can only apply and enforce these new rules prospectively in the commencement of future impeachment complaints,” it said, adding that it would be unfair if the SC would use the newly formulated rules, safeguard or guidelines to say that the House violated the due process clause and acted with grave abuse of discretion just because “it did not comply with the new prescriptions” as set forth in the decision.
The House also stressed that the one-year bar rule was not present at the time of the filing of the fourth impeachment complaint because the termination or archival of the three other complaints happened “after the House acted on the fourth complaint and resolved to transmit the same to the Senate, in accordance with Article XI, Section 3 (4) of the Constitution.
The House also rejected the part in the SC’s ruling when it held that the fourth impeachment complaint was acted on and transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote.
“With all due respect, this is inaccurate and such finding is not supported by official records,” it said, adding that both its Journal and Record showed that the plenary voted on the motion of Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe to transmit the fourth complaint to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment.
Likewise, it stressed that no impeachment complaint was willfully neglected or unacted upon.
“The first three impeachment complaints were included in the Order of Business within 10 session days. Thus, they were acted upon within the constitutionally mandated period,” it said.
The House also said the SC’s ruling that the archival of the first three impeachment complaints from which the magistrates draws its findings of dismissal and termination showed they were “unacted upon” is “legally and factually flawed.”
It also stressed that it should not be prejudiced by its reliance on the jurisprudential precedent laid down by no less than the SC itself in its ruling in Francisco vs House of Representatives.
It added that at the time of the assailed decision, the prevailing doctrine on the one-year bar rule on impeachment was that laid down in Francisco.
It also said the Constitution does not impose requirements regarding the manner of circulation, evidence gathering, and further hearing, before a complaint can be filed.
“To reiterate, these are matters internal to the House and left to its wisdom,” the House added.
DUE PROCESS
The House also said Duterte was given due process, contrary to the SC ruling that she was not given the chance to be heard.
It added that due process will occur during the trial before the Senate acting as an impeachment court, as the House role was the filing and transmittal of the articles of impeachment.
“The opportunity to be heard need not be before the House. For as long as it is present within the larger impeachment process, in this case during the Senate trial, no due process right is violated,” it further held said.
Romualdez also disputed the Tribunal’s claim that Duterte was denied due process because she was not furnished a copy or given a chance to respond.
“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,” he said.
INITIATION
Romualdez said the Constitution clearly states that 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. 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 said.
Romualdez said the House, on February 5, transmitted to the Senate for trial the fourth impeachment complaint, the one filed and signed by 215 members, and the three earlier complaints were only transmitted after.
“That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four. 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 said.
CONCURRING OPINIONS
Two magistrates of the Supreme Court who concurred with the controversial ruling also held that impeachment complaints are deemed terminated when the term of Congress expires, and that a trial cannot proceed.
This was the gist of the separate concurring opinions of Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and Henri Jean Paul Inting.
Hernando said the rules of both houses of Congress state that all unfinished business at the end of the term of Congress ended or terminated.
He also cited past SC rulings which state that the House is not a continuing body and the Senate is continuing as an institution, but that it is non-continuing with respect to its business and day-to-day matters.
Hernando explained that while the rules of the House and the Senate as well as the ruling of the SC did not mention impeachment proceedings, he added however, that these principles can likewise be applied to impeachment proceedings pending in either or both houses.
“The newly elected Congress could not be bound by the act of the previous Congress,” Hernando said.
“Binding the succeeding Congress to the acts of the previous Congress is tantamount to restricting or even disregarding the will of the people which was expressed anew in the conduct of elections. Casting a vote is the representation of the change or reaffirmation of the people’s will,” he added.
He said the “foregoing principles can be applied to impeachment proceedings.”
“Therefore, notwithstanding and in addition to my disquisition in this opinion, it is my view that the first three impeachment complaints before the House of Representatives of the 19th Congress, although transmitted to the archives, are terminated by reason of the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress. The fourth impeachment complaint already transmitted and pending before the Senate of the 19th Congress, as the Senate had already convened as an impeachment court is likewise terminated by reason of the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress,” he added.
But Hernando said the 20th Congress is not barred from initiating an impeachment complaint.
Inting echoed the view as he said that the Senate cannot conduct further proceedings on the impeachment complaint against the Vice President as it is not a continuing body.
Inting argued that even if the Rules of the Senate held that all pending matters “may be taken by the succeeding Congress as if presented for the first time,” he added this should not apply in impeachment.
“Given that the House and the Senate are not continuing bodies, a relevant issue before the Court is whether an impeachment case initiated by the outgoing House may be tried by the incoming Senate once the term of office of the new Senators begins. In my humble opinion, the Court must rule in the negative,” Inting said.
He said that impeachment is the expression of the political will of the members of the House that initiated it, and that the House in the next Congress may have a different view of whether or not to impeach Duterte.
“The articles of impeachment by a sitting House cannot bind the political will of the next House, which is composed of members who are distinct and different from those of the previous House,” he said.
“Consequently, upon the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress on June 30, 2025, the impeachment case that was initiated against Vice President Sara Duterte on February 3, 2025 was deemed terminated,” he added.
Meanwhile, Duterte ally Sen. Ronald dela Rosa urged his colleagues to “show respect” to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Dela Rosa made the remark as Senators Francis Pangilinan, Paolo Benigno Aquino, Risa Hontiveros, and minority leader Vicente Sotto III said they have signed a draft resolution asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.
“I am not a lawyer but I know how to respect and obey a Supreme Court decision that’s why I will not sign a resolution which questions this,” he said in Filipino. – With Raymond Africa
