VICE President Sara Duterte yesterday said there is no reason for the Supreme Court to reverse its controversial decision last month declaring the articles of impeachment against her as invalid for violating the one-year bar rule in the Constitution.
“The decision requires no factual correction, it rests on an unshaken foundation of truth,” Duterte, through the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm, said in a 27-page comment to the August 4 motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives challenging the high court’s decision.
In the comment, Duterte belittled the arguments raised by the House in its motion, such as the high court misconstruing the chronology of events, in that the archiving of the first three impeachment raps preceded the filing of the fourth complaint, that the decision wrongly stated that the fourth impeachment complaint was transmitted without plenary voting, and that the decision was wrong when it ruled that the prior complaints were effectively dismissed due to the adjournment of Congress.
“These claims are, however, mere diversions obsessed with trivia and blind to the decision’s genuine core reasoning. This fixation on peripheral details downplays the legitimate issue in this case, namely, that the HoR committed grave abuse of discretion and deliberately did away with the constitutionally imposed limitations to its power to impeach,” it said.
The SC in its ruling held that the articles of impeachment against Duterte had no legal basis as it barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte of any of the charges and that an impeachment complaint can be refiled in February 2026.
Following the SC ruling, the Senate voted 19-4-1 to archived the articles of impeachment.
In her response, Duterte accused the House of disregarding the limits of its power and the constitutional parameters underlying the impeachment process.
“Worse, they are demonstrative of a feigned ignorance of the HoR’s own overreach and fixate on immaterial details that do not alter the substance of the decision,” it said.
Regarding the claims that the SC misconstrued the chronology of events, Duterte said the decision showed the magistrates’ grasp of the timeline and the HoR’s maneuvers to skirt constitutional limits, when it ruled that the House circumvented the one-year bar rule.
“Neither did the Court err when it found that the fourth impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate without plenary vote. It is plain from the available records of the February 5, 2025 plenary session that the members of the HoR did not vote on the transmittal of the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate and the election of prosecutors for the impeachment proceedings in accordance with Rule XVI, Section 117 of its Rules,” Duterte said.
It added that the SC’s citing of an ABS-CBN News report on the transmittal of the impeachment complaint as evidence that no plenary vote took place, which the television station denied having reported that no plenary voting took place, was “neither the sole or decisive basis of its ruling.”
“A fleeting reference to a news report of an undisputed event — the transmittal by respondent Velasco to the Senate of the fourth impeachment complaint constituting the Articles of Impeachment — does not diminish or negate the independent assessment of records supporting the Court’s decision nor does it alter the legal consequences flowing therefrom,” it added.
Duterte also pointed that the House’ motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General has no authority from the current 20th Congress.
“Absent this approval by the plenary, the motion is unauthorized and legally infirm. It is a nullity that usurps the institutional authority of the 20th Congress itself,” it added.
Duterte also said the House’ motion “did not offer any cogent” grounds for the SC to reverse its decision.
Duterte also dismissed the House’ arguments that it did not violate her right to due process, adding that right should have been accorded to her at every stage of the impeachment proceeding.
“This means that whichever mode the House employs to initiate an impeachment proceeding, the respondent must be given notice and a fair, reasonable opportunity to address the allegations at the initiation stage, not only at trial,” it further said.
With all these, Duterte asked the SC to junk the motion for reconsideration filed by the House.
Over 200 House members voted last February to endorse the complaint which accused Duterte of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.
Earlier yesterday before the SC released Duterte’s comment, Michael Poa, spokesman for the vice president’s legal team in the impeachment case, said the OVP will not speak about the its opposition to the House’s appeal.
“We confirm that we have formally filed our comment/opposition to the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives… In deference to the sub judice rule and out of respect for the judicial process, we will not be granting media interviews or issuing further statements at this time,” he said in a statement. – With Wendell Vigilia
