(UPDATE) THE House of Representatives will file a motion for reconsideration challenging the Supreme Court’s decision rendering the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court on Friday blocked the impending impeachment trial of Duterte, saying it violated a constitutional provision against multiple impeachment proceedings within a single year.
Princess Abante, the House’s spokesman, said in Filipino on Sunday the chamber will file a motion for reconsideration “because the decision is based on premises or findings that are wrong and contrary to the official record of the House.”
Abante said the House “did everything to follow the rules and principles of our Constitution and earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. That is why we are very concerned about what seems to be new requisites imposed by the said decision.”
“One of the central facts in the Supreme Court decision is the claim that the February 5 impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote. This is categorically false,” she said.
On Feb. 5, “a motion for the House secretary general to endorse the complaint, which was supported by over a third of the House’s members, to the Senate was approved at the plenary,” Abante said.
The transmittal of the impeachment complaint to the Senate “was a clear result of plenary action,” she said.
The Constitution states that if the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least a third of all House members, it constitutes the impeachment articles, “and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
Abante said the Supreme Court “also claimed that the House failed to act on the first three impeachment complaints filed in December 2024. This, too, is inaccurate.”
She said that on the same day that action was taken on the February complaint, the House plenary voted to archive the three complaints filed in December at the House.
Because the February complaint was signed and verified by one-third of the House before it adjourned session, it constituted the Articles of Impeachment, and the House is obliged to send it to the Senate for trial, she said.
The Court invalidated the document on the ground of due process, since it had to be reviewed by those who signed it and referred back to the plenary for a vote, Abante said. The respondent in the complaint should have been provided a copy before it was submitted to the Senate.
There are no such stipulations in the Constitution or the rules of the House, she said.
“The House has also reviewed the now very stringent requirements imposed by the Court before an impeachment complaint can move forward. These are requirements that essentially amend the Constitution and represent an unacceptable intrusion into the exclusive powers of the House of Representatives,” Abante said.
Other forums
Reacting to the Supreme Court ruling, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said there are other forums where the supposed “evidence” in the impeachment case against Vice President Duterte can be tackled if the trial will not push through this year.
Lacson said one such forum to take up the use of confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) would be the Senate budget deliberations of agencies such as the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd).
“I will be actively asking questions. We can ask questions on the issue during the budget deliberations,” Lacson said in Filipino in a radio interview.
He said another alternative is for the Senate or House to file a resolution seeking an inquiry, in aid of legislation, on the use of CIF in agencies other than those involved in law enforcement.
Lacson said intelligence funds should be given only to the line agencies involved in intelligence work since they have the training to use them.
He reiterated that the rule of law must be considered by the Senate in deciding whether to push through with the impeachment trial.
“This is my opinion — if we decide to push through with the trial, the rule of law might be the casualty because we ‘defied’ the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter and interpreter of our Constitution and other legal issues,” Lacson said.
“We may disagree with the Supreme Court all we want but the bottom line is we should comply with it because our situation may become chaotic if we don’t,” he said.
