House moves to reverse Supreme Court ruling on Sara Duterte's impeachment

MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives is seeking to challenge the Supreme Court's nullification of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment, filing a motion for reconsideration that contests the application of the one-year bar rule.

The 61-page filing, made through the Office of the Solicitor General on Monday, August 4, sought the reversal of the high court's ruling and urged justices not to abandon their duty of judicial review. 

Co-equal branches. Instead, it asked that Congress, as a co-equal branch, be allowed to perform its constitutional duties, where the exclusive power of impeachment lies with the House of Representatives.

“When serious charges are raised against those who hold the highest offices, it is the House — not the courts — that is called upon to ask the first question: Is this official still worthy of the public trust?” House Speaker Romualdez said in a statement. 

“That power is not shared. It is not subject to prior approval. It is not conditional,” he added. 

Duterte faces allegations of graft and corruption over confidential funds, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other high crimes, including bribery and conspiracy to commit murder.

Political process. The motion described impeachment as “primarily a political process.” The House argued that while the process has legal facets, it is fundamentally governed by what it called the “highest legal rule of all” — the Constitution.

“[B]ut the political nature of it, its immediate connection to the public, its choice of the direct representatives of the people as its duty-bearers, even the framers’ own conscious decisions to move the process away from judicialization, cannot be denied,” the motion added. 

Factual error?

The House argued to the Supreme Court that the first three complaints were not left “unacted upon,” terminated or dismissed when Congress archived them right before the congressional break.

Even if the high court assumes a dismissal took place, the House pointed out that the first three complaints were archived only after the fourth was endorsed and adopted by the plenary and not before. 

“The fourth impeachment complaint could not have been barred by the archival, termination, or dismissal of the first three impeachment complaints, because while the latter were undergoing the process of inclusion and referral, the fourth impeachment complaint was completed,” the motion read. 

In other words, the Supreme Court’s position that the fourth verified complaint was barred due to the earlier archival of three others is based on a factual error.

“It is rather the fourth impeachment complaint which barred all other impeachment complaints from being initiated,” the motion stated. 

On one-year bar rule, due process

The House contends the one-year rule then is inapplicable in this case, stressing the Supreme Court’s own definition in Francisco vs. House of Representatives that impeachment is initiated either upon referral of a filed complaint to the committee or through a direct filing by at least one-third of the House.

“To reckon it from a complaint’s so called ‘dismissal’ would be to defeat the purpose of the 1-year bar, and to frustrate the spirit of Article XI,” the motion read. 

In response to due process concerns, the House argued that impeachment is inherently procedural due process through the Senate trial. 

“Due process is paramount — but the Constitution safeguards it through the Senate trial, not by limiting the House’s exclusive power to initiate,” Romualdez said. 

The motion also distinguished Article 11, which governs accountability of public officials, from Article 3, which the Supreme Court cited to protect citizens from government overreach. 

The high court had ruled that Duterte was denied the chance to be heard on the impeachment articles before they were transmitted to the Senate.

“The House categorically rejects the due process rules which the assailed Decision lays down for carrying out impeachment proceedings under Article XI, Section 3 (4),” the House argued, stressing how it has “unduly interfered” with the House’s own prerogatives to conduct impeachment proceedings. 

The Constitution, the chamber said, does not require a hearing after the filing of a complaint backed by at least one-third of the House membership. What it states is the transmittal and immediate start of a trial in the Senate. 

Section 3 (4), Article 11. “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

Oral arguments sought

If the due process rules on impeachment that the Supreme Court cited had existed earlier, the House would have fully complied, Romualdez said.

“But to invent them after the fact, and strike down a valid impeachment for not satisfying them, is not only unfair — it is constitutionally suspect,” he added.   

Romualdez also warned that when the Court establishes rules for impeaching itself and other high officials, “it risks writing the terms of its own immunity.”

The House's motion ultimately defends the constitutionality of its impeachment case against the vice president while arguing that proper judicial review should have addressed factual issues through oral arguments before ruling.

“The irony is not lost on us: the Court faulted the House for lack of due process, even as it ruled without fully extending due process to the House,” Romualdez said. 

The Supreme Court unanimously voted in favor of Duterte’s petition to declare her impeachment unconstitutional on July 25, announcing that the Senate has no jurisdiction to convene as an impeachment court over a voided complaint. 

The Senate has scheduled an August 6 vote on proceeding with the impeachment trial. However, support appears limited in the upper chamber, with a few senators expressing their desire to move forward given the House's pending motion for reconsideration.