House seeks reversal of Supreme Court decision blocking Sara impeachment trial

The House insists there was no violation of the constitutional one-year bar when it impeached Vice President Sara Duterte

MANILA, Philippines – Ahead of a Senate vote that is expected to abort Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial for good, the House of Representatives went to the Supreme Court to formally seek a reversal of the controversial SC ruling that declared her impeachment as unconstitutional.

In its motion for reconsideration on Monday, August 4, the House, via the Office of the Solicitor General, insisted that it did not violate the constitutional one-year bar when it impeached the country’s second top official.

The SC had ruled that the first three complaints filed with the House were not acted upon by February 5, therefore voiding the fourth complaint — the one signed by more than one-third of the House and transmitted to the Senate.

The House, however, insisted that the constitutional one-year bar was not triggered after the three complaints were archived by the House, because this was preceded by the endorsement of the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate.

“There is also a portion of the Decision which states that the fourth impeachment complaint was acted on and transmitted without the House voting in plenary. With all due respect, this is inaccurate and such finding is not supported by the official records,” the filing read.

The House also argued that it did not violate any constitutionally sanctioned time periods in the referral of the first three complaints to the plenary.

The House pointed out that the prevailing doctrine on impeachment, before the SC issued its ruling last week, was Francisco vs House of Representatives and Gutierrez vs House of Representatives, which laid out two modes for the initiation of an impeachment complaint — (1) filing and referral to the justice committee, (2) or mere filing by at least one-third of the House.

The House said none of the first three complaints had been referred to the committee when the fourth complaint was filed with the plenary, so the original three complaints were not “initiated” first.

“The Honorable Court’s pronouncement that effective dismissal due to the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and what ‘initiation’ plainly means,” it added.

In a sharply worded statement after the filing of the motion for reconsideration, House Speaker Martin Romualdez said the SC, in writing the ruling, “puts itself in the dangerous position of writing conditions that may shield itself from future accountability.”

“To invent new rules now, and apply them retroactively, is not just unfair. It is constitutionally suspect,” Romualdez said in a video statement.

“A government of laws cannot allow any branch to become the judge of its own accountability,” he added.

While the SC ruling was unanimous, prominent lawyers have called the decision “grossly unfair” and violative of the Constitution.

Senate President Chiz Escudero said the upper chamber will put to a vote the SC decision on Wednesday, August 6. He had said the Senate should comply with the High Court ruling to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada also earlier said 19 to 20 senators believe they should adhere to the decision, which would effectively kill Duterte’s trial.

The Vice President was impeached on the grounds of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

She was accused of plotting to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., misusing confidential funds, bribing government officials, and being involved in extrajudicial killings in Davao City, among others.

Because of the SC ruling, the earliest that the House can entertain another impeachment complaint against the Vice President is in February 2026. – Rappler.com