House files MR, asks SC to reverse ruling on VP Sara Duterte’s impeachment

The House of Representatives on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reverse its decision junking the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case.

“The House is not asking this Honorable Court to favor any one political result. Indeed, there are no convictions or acquittals at play yet, as the Senate has not even begun to conduct the trial-proper. It only asks that this Honorable Court allow Congress to perform the duties the Constitution asks of both its chambers to initiate an impeachment proceeding for the House, and to try the same, for the Senate,” the House said in its motion for reconsideration filed on Monday, August 4.

“The House asks this Honorable Court not to stand with a certain political faction or another, but to uphold the Constitution, which gives life to all the institutions of government, and with the people, who in turn, are the true sovereign, and to whom all accountability, trust, and power, are owed. Wherefore, premises considered, Respondents respectfully pray that the Honorable Court reverse the immediately executory nature of its July 25, 2025 Decision, and, after due proceedings, reconsider the same and dismiss the Petitions, for lack of merit,” it added.

The House, with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as its legal counsel, argued that the fourth impeachment complaint signed off by 215 House members is the only initiated impeachment case against the Vice President because it met the Constitutional requirement of the complaint being endorsed by at least one-third of the House members, which allowed the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment straight to the Senate en route to impeachment trial, bypassing Committee deliberations.

“Impeachment is a tool for the people. It was specially crafted as a mode of accountability for those who hold the highest positions in our government, so that, under the right circumstances, even a single citizen, so much less powerful than them, may hold them to account. It is the duty of every government body involved to ensure that it remains as accessible and viable a remedy as the framers envisioned it to be,” the appeal read.

Further, the House said that that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints against the Vice President on February 5, which was done after the transmittal of the fourth impeachment complaint, is not an initiated complaint that violated the one-year bar rule because the Supreme Court decision in the Francisco v. House case defines initiation as "either the filing of the complaint and its referral to the proper committee in impeachments under the first mode in Article 11 [Section 3.2] or the mere filing if under the second mode [Article 11 Section 3.4]."

“To reckon it from a complaint's so-called 'dismissal' would be to defeat the purpose of the one-year bar, and to frustrate the spirit of Article 11 [of the Constitution],” the appeal read.

Likewise, the House said that the filing of an impeachment case against the Vice President did not violate the her right to due process because the trial before the Senate impeachment court, as provided under the Constitution, is the due process.

Further, the House said that the right to due process under Article 3 of the Constitution on the Bill of Rights cannot be used to undermine Article 11  or the Accountability of Public Officials.

“Due process is already built into Article 11, Section 3 [of the Constitution] itself, in the form of the Senate trial. Article 3 works to protect citizens from the overwhelming machinery of the government [while] Article 11 is a tool for citizens to seek accountability against those who hold the most power in said machinery. One cannot be interpreted to obstruct the other,” the House’s MR pointed out.

Finally, the House said that archiving the first three impeachment complaints is not tantamount to grave abuse of discretion because the House has the authority to evaluate impeachment complaints filed before referral as provided under the Supreme Court decision on the Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice case.

“Referral to the proper committee within three session days is not ministerial on the part of the House. By its inclusion in the Order of Business, the House may deliberate on the same and choose, in its discretion, to dismiss sham, prohibited, or unverified complaints, or those that are filed in bad faith. This much has been affirmed in Gutierrez [case], thus, "[far from being mechanical, before the referral stage, a period of deliberation is afforded the House, as the Constitution, in fact, grants a maximum of three session days within which to make the proper referral.],” the House’s MR read.

The OSG filed the document Monday afternoon via the Philippine Judiciary Portal. The House prosecution panel provided the media copies of the motion for reconsideration.

The Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President are:

• conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez;
• malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents;
• bribery and corruption in the DepEd during Duterte’s tenure by handing out cash to former DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado (Procurement Head), Bids and Awards Committee Member Resty Osias, DepEd Chief Accountant Rhunna Catalan and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda;
• unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in the Vice President’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth where her wealth increased by four times from 2007 from 2017;
• involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City;
• destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder efforts, which include: boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself "designated survivor," leading rallies calling for Marcos' resignation, obstructing congressional investigations by ordering subordinates not to comply with subpoenas, threatening bodily harm against the First Couple and Romualdez, among others; and
• the totality of the Vice President’s conduct as the second highest official of the land.

 —AOL/BM, GMA Integrated News