The House of Representatives has formally appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its earlier decision declaring the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
Speaker Martin Romualdez clarified that the appeal, filed through the Office of the Solicitor General just days before the August 9 deadline, is not meant to defy the high court’s authority. Rather, he insisted that the House is merely performing its constitutional duty.
“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty,” Romualdez said in a statement quoted by GMA News. “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.”
The Supreme Court earlier ruled that four impeachment complaints had been “initiated” against Duterte, violating the one-year limit prescribed by the Constitution. Romualdez, however, disputed this, saying only one complaint was validly initiated.
“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,” he explained.
Romualdez also argued that there is no constitutional requirement mandating that Duterte must respond to the charges before the complaint is transmitted to the Senate. According to him, the proper venue for her response is during the Senate trial, not beforehand—echoing the process followed in previous impeachments.
He further raised concerns about the broader implications of the SC decision, suggesting that the new conditions imposed by the ruling could set a troubling precedent—especially since Supreme Court justices themselves are among those who can be impeached.
“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,” Romualdez warned. “That is not how checks and balances work.”
The House maintains that the power to initiate impeachment exclusively rests with them, as enshrined in the Constitution, and that the process they followed was consistent with both constitutional provisions and prior Supreme Court rulings.
