By Adrian H. Halili, Reporter
THE HOUSE of Representatives on Sunday said that it will file a motion for reconsideration before the Philippines’ High Court following its ruling to bar the impeachment proceedings of Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio for being unconstitutional.
“The House, after careful study, will file a Motion for Reconsideration because the decision is anchored on factual premises or findings that are erroneous and contrary to the official record of the House,” House Spokeswoman Priscilla Marie “Princess” T. Abante said in a statement.
Last week, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the impeachment of Ms. Duterte was unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban on the filing of more than one complaint against an impeachable official and the right to due process. Any subsequent impeachment complaint against her may only be filed by Feb. 6, next year.
A total four impeachment complaints were filed against the Vice-President. She was impeached on the fourth complaint after more than 200 House members voted to send her impeachment complaints to the Senate, after the first three failed to materialize.
Ms. Abante said that the Court’s primary argument — that the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate without plenary approval — was “categorically false.”
“On Feb. 5, 2025, Majority Leader (Manuel Jose “Mannix” M. Dalipe) proposed to forward the February complaint to the Senate, based on the fact that it was verified and signed by at least one third of the members of the House. This motion was approved in plenary, and the House immediately formed a panel of public prosecutors,” she added.
She said that the transmittal to the Senate was a clear result of the House’ plenary action.
The House Spokeswoman also argued that the House had voted to archive the first three impeachment complaints filed in December 2024.
“On the same day that the February complaint was acted upon, the House also voted in plenary to archive the three impeachment complaints filed in December. This was done hours before the session adjourned,” she added.
Ms. Abante said that the SC had issued a new rule that is not in existing laws and has invalidated the Articles of Impeachment based on the new standards of due process for the respondent.
“According to the Court, even a complaint that has been signed and verified by 1/3 of the members still needs to be read by each signatory and then referred back to the plenary for a vote. The respondent should also have been given a copy and an opportunity to respond to the complaint before it is submitted to the Senate. But there is no such requirement in our Constitution or the Rules of the House,” she added.
Ms. Duterte, who is widely seen as a potential presidential contender in 2028, was impeached last February with the backing of more than 200 lawmakers — exceeding the one-third threshold required to transmit the charges to the Senate.
She faces accusations of secret fund misuse, unexplained wealth, destabilization and plotting the assassination of President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., his family, and the Speaker. She has denied all allegations.
FACTUAL INACCURACIESIn a separate statement on Sunday, the 1SAMBAYAN Coalition called for the re-examination of the SC’s decision, also arguing factual inaccuracies.
“The misrepresentation of facts undermines the principles of due process and fair judgment,” the political group added. “1SAMBAYAN advocates for a transparent and accurate accounting of events, ensuring that future legal decisions are grounded on the truth and not flawed interpretations of the facts.”
It also said that the High Court’s decision was supported by a “flawed understanding” of the impeachment timeline and the procedural actions of the House.
“By incorrectly stating the order of events, the Court reached an erroneous conclusion regarding the timeliness of the fourth impeachment complaint,” 1SAMBAYAN added.
This could lead to a Constitutional crisis as some Senators have already shared plans to disregard the SC’s ruling, a political analyst warned.
“It is possible that this will lead to a constitutional crisis since some senators have already publicly declared that they want the trial to proceed believing that the Senate has the sole prerogative to handle and decide on issues pertaining to the impeachment of (Ms. Duterte),” Arjan P. Aguirre, who teaches political science at the Ateneo de Manila University, said in a Facebook Messenger chat.
He added that House prosecutors should use the setback as a way to campaign and raise awareness about the charges against the Vice-President.
“Use this time to gather more evidence too by conducting committee hearings for more discussions and deliberations to ferret out the truth, etc.” Mr. Aguirre said.
Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a fellow at the Ateneo de Manila University Policy Center, said that the charges against Ms. Duterte could instead be pursued through the Office of the Ombudsman.
“The House should bring the case to the Ombudsman. The House prosecutors should work to secure a plunder indictment that can be filed with the Sandiganbayan,” Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a fellow at the Ateneo de Manila University Policy Center, said in a Facebook Messenger chat.
He added that the High Court’s ruling did not absolve the Vice-President of the charges filed against her.
“So, plunder charges can be pursued and prosecuted through the Ombudsman. The VP can still be held criminally liable and punished accordingly,” Mr. Yusingco said.
Josue Raphael J. Cortez, who teaches diplomacy and governance at De La Salle-College of St. Benilde, noted that House prosecutors should confirm if they will still pursue a case against Ms. Duterte next year.
“It is still imperative that those supportive of the impeachment proceedings must continue doing their due diligence,” Mr. Cortez said in a Messenger chat.
