In pleading, House tells Sara impeachment court it didn’t violate Constitution

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

While it complied with the first of the two conditions set by the impeachment court, the House maintains that the Senate's move to remand the impeachment articles 'has no legal basis'

MANILA, Philippines – The House of Representatives asserted that its impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte was constitutional, in a pleading filed with the Senate sitting as an impeachment court on Wednesday, June 25.

In doing so, the House complied with one of the two conditions set by the Senate when it remanded the impeachment articles to the lower chamber on June 10.

The House’s submission was essentially an attachment of House Resolution No. 328, passed by the lower chamber on June 11 to certify that the proceedings did not violate the constitutional one-year bar, which is the key argument of Duterte and her allies in their efforts to block the upcoming trial.

“This submission is without waiver of the prosecution’s position that there is no legal basis for the return of the Articles of Impeachment forwarded to the Senate in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, which enjoys a presumption of legality and constitutionality,” the House submission read.

The House, however, has yet to comply with the second condition of the impeachment court, and it makes sense why.

The Senate had required the House of the 20th Congress to express its desire to continue with the impeachment trial — an act that the House will not be able to do until July 28, or when the 20th Congress convenes. The House of the 19th Congress only adjourned for good on June 11.

It was Senator Bato dela Rosa, following the suggestion of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who raised the motion to send back the impeachment articles to the House to supposedly certify that it did not circumvent the one-year bar, which states that only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against an impeachable official within a year.

The argument originated from Duterte’s petition filed with the Supreme Court in February seeking to stop the trial, and was also repeated in her answer to the impeachment court on June 23 after she was slapped with a writ of summons.

Duterte said the articles of impeachment — listed in the fourth impeachment complaint in February this year — were void because there were three complaints already lodged against her in December 2024.

“The House deliberately withheld the referral of the first three impeachment complaints to circumvent the one-year-bar rule and its own set of rules on impeachment proceedings, which explicitly require the Secretary General to immediately refer any verified complaint for impeachment to the Speaker of the House, who then shall have it included in the Order of Business within 10 session days,” the reply read.