House to seek reversal of SC decision on Sara Duterte impeachment

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

House spokesperson Princess Abante says the Supreme Court's decision, which cited the one-year bar rule on successive impeachment complaints, is 'factual and procedural inversion'

MANILA, Philippines – While expressing respect for the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling, the House of Representatives said on Sunday, July 27, that it will file a motion for reconsideration of the decision declaring the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.

“Ang Kamara, matapos ang masusing pag-aaral, ay maghahain ng motion for reconsideration dahil ang desisyon – na nagsasabing ang Articles of Impeachment na ipinadala sa Senado ay barred o unconstitutional – ay nakaangkla sa mga factual premises o findings na mali at salungat sa opisyal na rekord ng Kamara,” said House spokesperson Princess Abante.

(The House, after thorough study, will file a Motion for Reconsideration because the decision — which states that the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate are barred or unconstitutional — is anchored on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official records of the House.)

The House contended that the SC’s assertion — that the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate without its approval — was “categorically false.” Abante said that this was recorded in the House Journal No. 36 and in the official records of the chamber.

“Noong Pebrero 5, 2025, si Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe ang nagmungkahi na ipasa ang Pebrero complaint sa Senado, batay sa katotohanang ito ay verified at pirmado ng hindi bababa sa 1/3 ng mga miyembro ng Kamara. Ang mosyong ito ay inaprubahan sa plenaryo, at agad ring bumuo ang Kamara ng panel of public prosecutors,” Abante said.

(On February 5, 2025, Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe moved to transmit the February complaint to the Senate, based on the fact that it was verified and signed by at least one-third of the members of the House. The motion was approved in plenary, and the House immediately formed a panel of public prosecutors.)

Abante also noted that the SC decision, which cited the one-year bar rule on successive impeachment complaints, was “factual and procedural inversion.”

“Sa parehong araw na inaksyunan ang February complaint, bumoto rin ang Kamara sa plenaryo na i-archive ang tatlong impeachment complaints na inihain noong Disyembre. Ginawa ito ilang oras bago mag-adjourn ang session, dahil nakumpirma na ang Pebrero complaint ay pirmado at verified ng 1/3 ng mga miyembro ng Kamara,” she explained.

(On the same day action was taken on the February complaint, the House also voted in plenary to archive the three impeachment complaints filed in December. This was done just a few hours before the session adjourned, as it had been confirmed that the February complaint was signed and verified by one-third of the House members.)

“To disregard these facts is not only a disservice to the truth – it is a disservice to the Constitution itself,”  Abante said.

On Friday, July 25, in an unexpected turn of events, the SC unanimously declared the impeachment proceedings against Duterte unconstitutional, citing a lack of due process. However, the High Court did not foreclose the possibility of refiling a year later or in February 2026. The decision was welcomed by the Senate impeachment court, though some senators expressed their disapproval. – Rappler.com