HOUSE leaders yesterday echoed the call of business groups for the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, saying it “underscores a deepening public concern over the erosion of transparency and accountability in government.”
Deputy speaker Paolo Ortega V of La Union said he understands the frustration of the Makati Business Club, Management Association of the Philippines, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative.
“This is not just a legal debate. It is a test of our commitment to truth, fairness and constitutional checks,” Ortega said. “When leading business groups warn that impunity is being institutionalized, the Court must listen. Transparency is non-negotiable, and accountability cannot be optional.”
Manila Rep. Joel Chua, chair of the House committee on good government and public accountability, said, “We share the sentiments of our businessmen and business professionals. We have been saying all along that the impeachment complaint against the Vice President is about accountability.”
“It’s accountability on her part for the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds received by her office as Vice President and by the Department of Education when she was education secretary,” said Chua, a member of the House’s 11-man prosecution panel.
Chua pointed out that taxpayers are at the losing end of the decision since the Vice President will not be able to account for the P612.5 million in tax money in question until the House files a new impeachment case next year.
“These issues are now hanging in the air. In the meantime, the SC ruling has negatively impacted the pursuit of accountability and the campaign against corruption in the bureaucracy,” Chua said.
‘RESTORE INTEGRITY’
Ortega called on SC magistrates to take the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives “seriously and restore integrity to the process by allowing the case to proceed on its merits.”
“This is not about partisanship. It is about principle. The Constitution gives the people a right to demand accountability — and that right must not be denied through procedural shortcuts,” he said.
In a joint statement Friday, the business groups urged the High Court to “resume its role in defending the Constitution,” saying its July 25 decision “sends a dangerous signal throughout the bureaucracy that abuse of power and corruption carry no consequence.”
Ortega echoed the business groups’ concerns, saying impeachment “is a constitutional safeguard designed to promote government transparency, not a political weapon.” “Impeachment exists to protect the people and ensure accountability at the highest levels of government,” he said.
“Blocking even the initiation of that process through legal technicalities deprives the public of their right to know — and their right to demand answers,” he said.
The House impeached Duterte last February based on various allegations, including her alleged misuse of a total of P612.5 million in confidential funds disbursed by both the Department of Education, which she used to head as secretary, and the Office of the Vice President, through the use of dubious recipients such as the now infamous “Mary Jane Piattos.”
Duterte faced seven Articles of Impeachment, which also raised her use of P125 million in just 11 days in December 2022 when she was still education secretary.
The House leadership has already appealed 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.
The SC voided the impeachment case on the grounds that the fourth complaint that the House filed last February violated the constitutional one-year bar rule, declaring that the first three complaints filed in December 2024 by civil society groups were “deemed initiated” even if these were not referred to the House committee on justice and were effectively dismissed when congressmen chose to send the fourth complaint to the Senate for trial before the session adjourned for the holidays.
The business groups said the Tribunal treated the first three complaints as “deemed initiated,” even if the House did not act on it in favor of the fourth complaint filed by House leaders and signed by 215 lawmakers, more than the constitutional requirement of one-third of the membership of the House.
“If the framers of the Constitution intended that inaction by the House shall make an impeachment ‘deemed initiated,’ it would have been so indicated like the rest of the provisions above stated,” the groups said.
They also disputed the SC’s claim that the Vice President was denied due process because she was not required to answer the complaint at the House, saying impeachment is not a criminal or an administrative proceeding. “The Court, by its decision in this case as it stands, unfortunately prevented due process from happening,” the groups said.
“It (impeachment) is not to shield a government official from the rigors of defending himself or herself, but to safeguard the people’s right to demand accountability from those who wield authority supposedly on their behalf,” they also said.
SHIELD
Ortega agreed, saying the SC’s reading of the Constitution “not only undermines legal precedent but also opens the door to unchecked power.” “What the Court has done is create a shield for high-ranking officials to avoid scrutiny. That sets a dangerous precedent and weakens the very foundation of democratic accountability,” he said.
He also warned that the SC’s ruling may have broader economic consequences since the business groups cited risks such as rising costs of doing business, strained supply chains and reduced investor confidence.
“You cannot separate transparency from economic resilience. If institutions appear unwilling or unable to hold officials accountable, confidence — both political and financial — begins to crumble,” he said.
