5 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
MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives will file a motion for reconsideration on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte after the Supreme Court struck it down, declaring it unconstitutional.
Princess Abante, spokesperson for the House of Representatives, said that while the chamber respects the high court’s decision, it is "deeply concerned" that the ruling was based on "erroneous factual premises" that contradict official House records.
She noted that a key point of contention is the Supreme Court’s claim that the impeachment complaint, filed on Feb. 5, 2025, was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote—an assertion Abante said is “wrong.”
“Naninindigan ang Kamara na ang proseso ng impeachment ay naaayon at sumunod sa Konstitusyon at jurisprudence gaya ng desisyon sa Francisco at Gutierrez. Sa madaling salita, ginawa ng Kamara ang lahat upang sundan ang mga alituntunin at prinsipyo ng ating Saligang Batas at ng mga naunang pasya ng Korte Suprema,” she said in a statement.
(The House maintains that the impeachment process was, in accordance with, and followed the Constitution and jurisprudence, such as the decisions in Francisco and Gutierrez. In short, the House did everything to adhere to the rules and principles of our Constitution and the Supreme Court's previous rulings.)
Abante cited the Francisco v. House of Representatives case in 2003, which held that an impeachment proceeding is initiated once a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action.
She also referred to the Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice ruling in 2011, which stated that multiple impeachment complaints may be simultaneously referred to the Committee and would count as only one initiation.
She also clarified that on February 5, House Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe moved to transmit the complaint to the Senate, noting it was verified and signed by at least one-third of the House members.
This motion, according to Abante, was approved in plenary, and a panel of public prosecutors was immediately formed, as detailed in House Journal No. 36 and the official Record of the House of Representatives.
“The transmission to the Senate was not unilateral or ministerial—it was a clear result of plenary action,” Abante said.
Failure to act. The House also refuted the high court's assertion that it failed to act on the first three impeachment complaints filed in December 2024.
Abante explained that on the same day the February complaint was acted upon, the House also voted in plenary to archive the December complaints.
“On the same day the February complaint was acted upon, the House also voted in plenary to archive the three impeachment complaints filed in December,” Abante said in Filipino.
“This was done hours before the session adjourned, as it was confirmed that the February complaint was signed and verified by 1/3 of the House members,” she added.
The spokesperson also criticized the high court's conclusion that the complaints were neglected due to adjournment, calling it "clearly contrary to official record and documents submitted to the Supreme Court."
On one-year bar rule. The House spokesperson also pointed out that the Supreme Court's conclusion—that the February complaint violated the one-year bar—was based on a "factual and procedural inversion," arguing that the premise of the high court's legal pronouncements was incorrect.
Abante pointed out that the decision failed to include the plenary vote, misread the timeline of the House's actions and gave more credence to a news article than to the official House Journal and reports directly submitted to the high court.
“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,” Abante said.
(The timeline of the House's actions was misinterpreted, and a news article was given more credence than the House Journal and the official report submitted directly to the Court.)
“Nakababahala na ang desisyon ay hindi man lang bumanggit o tumugon sa mga dokumentong ito,” she added.
(It is concerning that the decision did not even mention or respond to these documents.)
Abante also pointed out that the Supreme Court’s ruling suggested that even a complaint signed and verified by one-third of the House members must still be read by each signatory and referred to the plenary for another vote. The ruling also supposedly required that the respondent be given a copy of the complaint and an opportunity to respond before it is transmitted to the Senate.
The House, however, argued that no such requirements exist in the Constitution or the House Rules. It maintained that the High Court effectively introduced new, non-existent rules and invalidated the Articles of Impeachment based on these newly imposed due process standards for the respondent.
How did the Supreme Court rule. On Friday, July 25, the Supreme Court ruled that the articles of impeachment against Duterte are unconstitutional.
Due to the one-year prohibition rule on impeachment complaints, which the high court said the House violated, the Senate does not acquire jurisdiction of the impeachment complaint.
RELATED: ‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court bars impeachment vs VP Sara Duterte
The en banc's decision stemmed from how the first three impeachment complaints were filed, archived and dismissed before the House adjourned on February 5, the same day the plenary impeached Duterte.
To the Supreme Court en banc, archiving meant that an impeachment proceeding against Duterte was already initiated.
Therefore, it believes that the fourth impeachment complaint would serve to initiate another within the same year — violating Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution:
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
