Romualdez: VP Sara impeach raps filed 'out of duty, not out of spite'

The House of Representatives’ decision to file an impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is a matter of duty and not about a supposed power play, Speaker and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez said Thursday.

Romualdez issued the statement a day after the Senate decided to archive the impeachment case against the Vice President even if the House has appealed the Supreme Court decision declaring the impeachment case unconstitutional.

“Why the rush? [to archive]? The Constitution is clear: only the House has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment. That power is final within its sphere. We exercised that power lawfully, transparently, and in good faith—not out of spite, but out of duty. Not to attack, but to ask for answers—answers the Vice President never gave,” Romualdez said.

The speaker also questioned the Senate's move as he maintained that the case "remains active."

“To archive is, in effect, to bury the Articles of Impeachment. Yet, the ruling of the Supreme Court is not final. On August 5, the House filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court found our arguments serious enough to require the respondents, including the Vice President, to submit their comment. The case is active,” Romualdez added.

Romualdez, a lawyer, then argued that the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President followed the Constitution’s mechanism in exacting accountability on public officials, not a mere power play.

“More than one-third of House Members signed the verified complaint. Under the Constitution, that triggered the automatic transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment. No referral to the committee was needed. No further plenary action was required. The process was complete,” Romualdez said.

'Playground'

Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Wednesday asked members of the House of Representatives to refrain from trying to use the Senate as a tool to go after political adversaries.

“To the House of Representatives I say, do not allow yourselves to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of a few who did things haphazardly, gravely abused their discretion, and violated due process, rights under the Constitution as found by the High Court itself,” the Senate president said. 

Escudero made the remark as he explained his vote for archiving the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.

"To these people, I say this: the Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme,” Escudero said.

Romualdez, however, said that the impeachment case was "never about political maneuvering."

"It was about accountability anchored on verified facts and sworn documents. Yet we have been met with personal attacks, sweeping accusations, and a narrative that seeks to reduce a solemn constitutional duty into mere power play. That’s not just unfair—it is dangerous. It undermines public trust in the very tools of democratic checks and balances,” said Romualdez.

Romualdez also insisted that the impeachment case was not "haphazardly" done. 

“Let’s be clear: The filing of the complaint was not rushed. What was rushed—remarkably—was its burial,” Romualdez said.

“Tuloy ang laban: For the Constitution, for the rule of law, and for the enduring truth that no public office is ever beyond the reach of accountability,” Romualdez added.

Former Senator and ML party-list Representative Leila de Lima said the Senate prioritized protecting power over upholding accountability.

“After delaying the impeachment trial for months, despite the constitutional mandate to do so 'forthwith,' the Senate now pounces on the Supreme Court decision, almost gloating that they now have enough ammunition for a new round of excuses," De Lima said. 

“Let’s not pretend this is about respecting the Supreme Court. If the senators truly respected the process, they would wait for the High Court to fully decide, with finality," she added.

De Lima said the Senate could have just noted the motion for reconsideration.

“Malalakas ang argumento ng Solicitor General as the counsel of the House of Representatives. Malinaw na may mga mali doon sa desisyon. Kaya importante na bigyan ng chance ang Supreme Court to revisit, re-examine, and take another hard look at the arguments in favor of impeachment,” she said.

(The Solicitor General's argument as the counsel of the House of Representatives is strong. There are flaws in the decision. So it is important to give the Supreme Court a chance to revisit, re-examine, and take another hard look at the arguments in favor of impeachment.)

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, one of the House prosecutors in the impeachment case, said that an impeachment complaint filed based on Constitutional requirements and existing laws was ripe for trial, contrary to Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s statement.

“How can it be unripe when more than one-third of the House members endorsed the complaint. We filed the complaint based on Supreme Court decisions on Francisco [v. House] and Gutierrez [v. House Committee on Justice] ruling, based on the House rules and based on the Constitution?” Chua said.

Chua said that the Supreme Court’s July 25 decision that the House was appealing imposed too many restrictions that undermined the House’s sole constitutional duty to initiate an impeachment complaint.

 These new requirements include:

• the Articles of Impeachment or Resolution must include evidence when shared with the House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
• the evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.
• the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only to those who are being considered to endorse.
• the respondent in the impeachment complaint should have been given a chance to be heard on the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to its transmittal to the Senate, despite the number of endorsements from House members.
• the House of Representatives must be given reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether or not they will endorse an impeachment complaint. However, the Supreme Court has the power to review whether this period is sufficient. The petitioner who invokes the Supreme Court's power to review should prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.
• the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article XI Section 2, or the Trail of Public Trust given by the majority of the electorate. For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy.
• the House of Representatives is required to provide a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and its accompanying evidence to the respondent to give him/her an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period to be determined by the House rule and to make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the House of Representatives. 

“The Supreme Court only comes in when there is grave abuse of discretion. Adding parameters to initiate an impeachment complaint is not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction because these already amend the rules of the House, which has the exclusive power to impeach under the Constitution," Chua said.

House Committee on Human Rights chairperson Manila Rep. Benny Abante of Manila said the Vice President’s viability or popularity as a candidate for the 2028 polls is irrelevant in impeachment discussions because public office was a public trust, not a privilege.

“The impeachment process is not about 2028 [elections]. It is about whether public funds were used during a time when no legal mandate had yet been conferred to an office. That is a clear question of constitutional integrity—not political ambition,” Abante said.

“Impeachment is not a political circus. It is a constitutional mechanism designed to hold high officials accountable. When we reduce it to mere political noise, we erode the very institutions we swore to uphold,” he added.

Abante said popularity should never be used as an excuse to evade accountability.

“The House did not weaponize impeachment—we exercised it in accordance with the Constitution," Abante said.

"The question before us was not ‘Who wants to run in 2028?’ but ‘Were public funds used in a manner that requires accountability? What are we teaching the next generation? That popularity shields you from accountability? That ambition is more important than truth?” he added.

Asked if the Senate’s action of archiving the impeachment complaint is a message that the Senate tolerates the questionable disbursement of P612.5 million worth of confidential fund by the Vice President and the Vice President’s death threats to President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and his family, House Deputy Majority Leader Zia Adiong of Lanao del Sur answered in the affirmative.

“That question brought us back to where the real center of this discussion should be, and that is accountability," Adiong said.

"That decision [by the Senate] affirms our initial apprehension na baka patatakasin na sa pananagutan ang isang nasasakdal, which in this case, the Vice President. There's no way for us to say otherwise [that the Vice President will be held into account],” he added.

 (The Senate’s decision affirms our initial apprehension that they will just let the person accountable, in this case, the Vice President, get away with her actions.)

“Should a public official get away with accountability by saying it is just about politics? It is up for the Senators to vote for her acquittal or conviction. But please, allow the Constitution to work and allow the presentation of evidence to happen," Adiong said.

"That way, we do not only discuss among ourselves as politicians or as public officers, but it also gives way for the entire nation to learn and see whether these allegations are real or not,” he added. —with Tina Panganiban-Perez/VAL/VBL, GMA Integrated News