House appeals SC’s dismissal of Duterte impeachment case

National

“THIS is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty.”

Speaker Martin Romualdez insisted this as the House of Representatives formally appealed the dismissal of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The House filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court where it asked the High Court to re-assess and correct its decision.

“With full respect for the Constitution, in defense of institutional balance, and in the name of the Filipino people, the House of Representatives has filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court,” Romualdez said in a report by Philippine News Agency.

Romualdez clarified that the House is not defying the SC's decision and is only performing its duty.

“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty. We do not challenge the authority of the Court. We seek only to preserve the rightful role of the House -- the voice of the people -- in the process of accountability,” he explained.

Romualdez underscored that the appeal was filed to correct factual inaccuracies and retroactive procedural requirements applied by the SC, which he claimed undermine both the Constitution and the people's right to hold high officials accountable.

“Let us be clear. The Constitution says ‘the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.’ That power is not shared. Not subject to pre-approval. And not conditional,” Romualdez stressed.

“Yet in G.R. No. 278353, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, based on a misreading of facts and a retroactive imposition of new rules,” he said.

Romualdez reiterated that the appeal is not to encourage a clash of institutions, but to protect the people's right to hold officials accountable.

He emphasized that the House acted within the limit provided by the Constitution, which is 10-session days, when it submitted the fourth impeachment complaint on February 5.

“On February 5, 2025, the House transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint -- filed and signed by 215 Members -- to the Senate. Only after this transmittal did we archive the earlier three complaints. That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four,” he explained.

“Even the Court’s own precedent -- Francisco v. House -- supports this: Only one impeachment can be initiated, and that initiation begins with a one-third endorsement or a referral. That is exactly what the House did,” Romualdez added.

The complaint was properly verified and was endorsed by over one-third of all the Members, making it the only basis for trial, he said.

Romualdez also answered the issue on due process when the SC said Duterte was not allowed an opportunity to respond.

“The Court also said the Vice President was denied due process because she was not furnished a copy or given a chance to respond,” he said. “But nowhere in the Constitution is that required before transmittal. In fact, in all past impeachments, the trial and the right to be heard take place in the Senate.”

Romualdez stressed that no branch of government should decide the limits of its own accountability, this is especially true when the issue involves the very process of which an official can be held accountable to the people.

“The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Its wisdom is deep. Its authority is real. But its members -- like the President and the Vice President -- are also impeachable officers,” he explained.

“When the Court lays down rules for how it, or others like it, may be impeached, it puts itself in the dangerous position of writing conditions that may shield itself from future accountability,” he said. “That is not how checks and balances work.”(Marlon Ado Jr., USC Comm Intern)