The House of Representatives has filed an appeal asking the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its earlier ruling declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
Speaker Martin Romualdez emphasized that the move is not meant to challenge the authority of the high court but rather to fulfill their constitutional obligation.
“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty,” Romualdez said. “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.”
Represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, the House submitted its motion just days before the August 9 deadline. Romualdez maintained that the Constitution clearly grants the House the exclusive authority to initiate impeachment proceedings, asserting that lawmakers strictly followed both the Constitution and past SC rulings when they impeached Duterte.
In their appeal, Romualdez argued that only one impeachment complaint was “initiated” against Duterte, not four as stated in the SC decision. He explained that the first three complaints were merely archived once the fourth complaint—signed by 215 lawmakers—was transmitted to the Senate.
“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,” Romualdez explained.
He further stressed that there is no constitutional requirement to solicit the Vice President’s formal response before transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate. According to him, Duterte’s opportunity to address the accusations should take place during the Senate impeachment trial, as has been the case with other impeached officials.
Romualdez also criticized what he described as the sudden imposition of new rules in the SC decision, calling them not only “unfair” but also “constitutionally suspect.”
“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.”