SPEAKER Martin Romualdez yesterday assailed the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, saying the House of Representatives will not be silenced in its effort to seek accountability from erring public officials.
“We draw a line: the power to initiate impeachment is the exclusive domain of this chamber. It flows from the people’s will and rests solely on the clear language of the Constitution. It is neither granted nor guided by any outside institution. The Court may close a case, but it cannot close a cause. The pursuit of accountability is not a moment — it is a mandate,” Romualdez said in his acceptance speech after his re-election as the leader of the lower house.
At the Senate, Senators Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino and Francis Pangilinan issued a joint statement calling on the SC to reconsider its decision to stop the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President.
The House has said that it would appeal the SC’s decision because of what it said were factual errors in the ruling, particularly the High Court’s claim that the impeachment articles were transmitted to the Senate without the House’s plenary approval.
Romualdez said the House will begin a new chapter under the 20th Congress “amid a development that once again calls us to reflect on our sacred constitutional duty — the Supreme Court’s decision on the impeachment case filed against the Vice President.”
“Let me say this with the utmost respect: The Supreme Court has spoken, and we recognize its decision. But let it never be said that the House of the People bowed in silence,” he said.
The Speaker, a first cousin of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., maintained that the House’s actions in going after the Vice President “are driven not by politics, but by principles.”
Romualdez said the House’s integrity would not be compromised by external pressures, vowing to safeguard its independence. “We are not moved by personalities, but by principles. We are not driven by vendetta, but by vigilance,” he said.
“Our goal has never been to destroy — only to demand the truth. When institutions falter, the House of the People always stands firm. When others fear the storm, your House holds the line. And as your Speaker, I will be here — not just to preside, but to protect,” he said.
House spokesman Princess Abante has said that the SC’s conclusion that the February complaint violated the constitutional one-year bar rule was clearly based on a “factual and procedural inversion.”
She said the basis of the court’s decision upon which the legal pronouncements of the court were based on was wrong because it did not consider the plenary vote.
Romualdez said the House would remain steadfast through any “institutional storm,” vowing to stand by his colleagues. “Hindi ko kayo iiwan sa gitna ng unos (I will not leave you amid the storm),” he said.
“Our work as legislators is both constitutional and moral. It is through the laws we pass — and the accountability we uphold — that we protect rights, promote equity and shape the future of our democracy,” he said.
RECONSIDER
In disagreeing with the SC ruling, Hontiveros, Aquino and Pangilinan maintained that the House acted in good faith and followed prevailing jurisprudence in initiating and transmitting the complaint against Duterte to the Senate last February.
They said that to retroactively apply a new definition of what it means to “initiate” an impeachment case after the fact – as what the SC ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen did – can be likened to changing the rules in the middle of a game.
“It is unfair. Former Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna, a respected constitutionalist and framer, called it what it is: legally defensible, perhaps, but grossly unfair,” they said.
With this, the three senators urged the SC to reconsider its decision and apply two principles it has long upheld – namely the Fairness Principle which states that retroactive application of new legal interpretations should not harm those who relied in good faith on old ones; and the Doctrine of Operative Facts, or that actions already taken under a prior, valid interpretation should be recognized as legally effective.
“In doing so, the Court would not be undermining its power of review, but rather giving full effect to all branches of government, consistent with the doctrine established in Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary — that no constitutional provision should be read in a way that negates another,” they said.
They added that the powers of the SC, the House, and the Senate must be balanced, stressing that “allowing this precedent risk silencing the very process meant to keep power in check.”
“We call on our fellow citizens, on every institution that still believes in accountability, and on the Supreme Court itself: harmonize the seemingly conflicting provisions of the Constitution on Judicial review and the exclusive powers of Congress,” they said.
Several legal luminaries, including Azcuna and former Chief Justice Renato Puno, have earlier expressed concerns at the SC ruling on the impeachment case against Duterte. – With Ashzel Hachero
