MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives announced on Sunday that it will file a motion for reconsideration against the Supreme Court’s ruling that declared the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court on Friday halted the planned Senate trial, citing a constitutional prohibition against conducting more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a year.
House spokesperson Princess Abante said in a statement delivered in Filipino that the chamber would appeal the ruling, claiming it was “based on premises or findings that are wrong and contrary to the official record of the House.”
“The House did everything to follow the rules and principles of our Constitution and earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. That is why we are very concerned about what seems to be new requisites imposed by the said decision,” Abante said.
House Defends Plenary Action
A key point in the Court’s decision was the claim that the impeachment complaint, filed on February 5, was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote. Abante called this “categorically false.”
She explained that on February 5, the House approved a motion for the secretary general to endorse the impeachment complaint, which was backed by more than one-third of House members.
“The transmittal of the impeachment complaint to the Senate was a clear result of plenary action,” she said.
According to the Constitution, once an impeachment complaint is filed by at least one-third of House members, it becomes the official Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate must proceed to trial “forthwith.”
Abante also disputed the Supreme Court’s claim that the House failed to act on three earlier impeachment complaints filed in December 2024. She said these were formally archived by the House plenary on the same day it moved on the February complaint.
The Supreme Court invalidated the impeachment articles citing due process violations — particularly that the complaint had not been reviewed or voted on again after signatures were gathered, and that the respondent had not been provided a copy beforehand.
Abante pushed back, stating that no such requirements exist in either the Constitution or the House rules.
“These are requirements that essentially amend the Constitution and represent an unacceptable intrusion into the exclusive powers of the House of Representatives,” she added.
Alternative Avenues for Accountability
Meanwhile, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said there are other avenues to raise concerns about the Vice President’s alleged misuse of confidential and intelligence funds (CIF), even if the impeachment trial does not proceed this year.
Lacson said that questions on the issue could be tackled during the Senate’s budget deliberations for the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) — both of which are under Duterte’s leadership.
“I will be actively asking questions. We can ask questions on the issue during the budget deliberations,” he said in Filipino during a radio interview.
He also suggested that either chamber of Congress could file a resolution to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, to examine the use of CIFs by non-security agencies.
“Intelligence funds should be limited to line agencies with proper training and mandate to use them,” he added.
Still, Lacson emphasized that the rule of law should prevail.
“If we decide to push through with the trial, the rule of law might be the casualty because we ‘defied’ the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter and interpreter of our Constitution,” he warned.
“We may disagree with the Supreme Court all we want, but the bottom line is we should comply with it because our situation may become chaotic if we don’t.”
