7 hours ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
The House of Representatives, the main respondent in the impeached case of Vice President Sara Duterte, will file a motion for reconsideration (MR) before the Supreme Court (SC) following its dismissal of the complaint.
This was confirmed by House spokesperson, lawyer Princess Abante in a statement Sunday, July 27, as she pointed out "grave factual errors" in the SC's decision to strike down the complaint against the Vice President for supposedly being unconstitutional.
The complaint contained the seven articles of impeachment against Duterte, whom the Senate impeachment court did not immediately put on trial.
Abante said that while the House maintains respect for the SC ruling, it pointed out concerns that it was based on findings that contradict the official record of the House of Representatives.
She said the high court might have "inadvertently rewritten the rules of impeachment".
“Ang Kamara, matapos ang masusing pag-aaral, ay maghahain ng Motion for Reconsideration dahil ang Desisyon – na nagsasabing ang articles of impeachment na ipinadala sa Senado ay barred o unconstitutional – ay nakaangkla sa mga factual premises o findings na mali at salungat sa opisyal na rekord ng Kamara,” she said.
(The House, after thorough study, will file a Motion for Reconsideration because the decision — which states that the articles of impeachment sent to the Senate are barred or unconstitutional — is anchored on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official record of the House.)
'Categorically false'
Abante said the court’s primary assertion – that the articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate without plenary approval – was “categorically false".
“Noong Pebrero 5, 2025, si Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe ang nagmungkahi na ipasa ang Pebrero complaint sa Senado, batay sa katotohanang ito ay verified at pirmado ng hindi bababa sa 1/3 ng mga miyembro ng Kamara. Ang mosyong ito ay inaprubahan sa plenaryo, at agad ring bumuo ang Kamara ng panel of public prosecutors,” said Abante, who added that the complaint's submission to the Senate was the "clear result of plenary action".
(On Feb. 5, 2025, Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe proposed to transmit the February complaint to the Senate, based on the fact that it was verified and signed by no less than 1/3 of the members of the House. This motion was approved in plenary, and the House immediately formed a panel of public prosecutors.)
She noted that this was clearly recorded in House Journal No. 36 and in the official record of the House of Representatives.
The SC also cited the House’s supposed failure to act on three earlier impeachment complaints filed in December 2024. Abante denied this, and said the lower chamber had in fact voted to archive the three complaints hours before adjournment on Feb. 5..
“Ayon sa Konstitusyon, ito ay itinuturing nang articles of impeachment at obligadong ipadala sa Senado para sa paglilitis (According to the Constitution, this is already considered as articles of impeachment and must be transmitted to the Senate for trial)," she said.
The House spokesperson described the SC's conclusion – that the February complaint violated the one-year bar rule – as based on a “factual and procedural inversion".
“Ang pinakabatayang saligan ng desisyon kung saan umikot ang mga legal pronouncements ng Korte ay mali. Hindi isinama ang plenary vote, mali ang pagbasa sa timeline ng mga kilos ng Kamara, at mas pinaniwalaan ang isang news article kaysa sa House Journal at opisyal na report na isinumite mismo sa Korte,” she said.
Vice President Duterte's camp earlier sought before the SC the dismissal of the impeachment complaint for alleged violation of the one-year bar rule. The Office of the Secretary General (OSG) represents the House in the case.
Did the SC revise impeachment rules?
Abante also raised concerns over the SC's interpretation of due process, and claimed it imposed new, "very stringent requirements" not found in either the 1987 Constitution or House rules.
“Ayon sa Korte, kahit ang reklamong pirmado na at verified ng 1/3 ng mga miyembro ay kailangan pa ring basahin ng bawat pumirma at pagkatapos ay i-refer muli sa plenaryo upang pagbotohan. Dapat din daw ay nabigyan ng kopya at pagkakataon ang respondent na sagutin ang reklamo bago ito maisumite sa Senado. Ngunit wala pong ganitong rekisito sa ating Konstitusyon o sa mga rules ng Kamara,” she explained.
(According to the court, even a complaint already signed and verified by 1/3 of the members must still be read by each signer and then referred again to the plenary for voting. They also said the respondent must have been given a copy and the opportunity to respond to the complaint before it is submitted to the Senate. But there is no such requirement in our Constitution or in the rules of the House.)
“Sa madaling salita, nagbigay ang Korte ng panibagong patakaran na wala naman sa umiiral na batas. Pinawalang-bisa nila ang articles of impeachment base sa mga bagong pamantayan ng due process,” added the House official.
(In other words, the Court issued a new guideline that is not found in existing law. They invalidated the articles of impeachment based on new standards of due process.)
Abante said these apparent revisions to the rules not only complicate the impeachment process but also encroach on the exclusive powers of the House. Only the legislature, not the judiciary, can amend the Constitution.
