THE House of Representatives will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, because of what it said were factual errors in the ruling.
“To disregard these facts is not only a disservice to the truth – it is a disservice to the Constitution itself,” House spokesperson Princess Abante said in a statement yesterday referring to the decision issued by the tribunal last Friday.
Abante cited the High Court’s claim that the articles were transmitted to the Senate without the House’s plenary approval, which she said was “categorically false.”
“First, the House’s respect for our Supreme Court remains. However, we are tremendously concerned after receiving and reading the SC’s decision where it nullified the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte transmitted to the Senate last February 5, 2025,” she said in Filipino.
Abante said the House will file a motion for reconsideration because the “decision was anchored on factual premises of findings that contradict the official records of the House.” She warned that because of such factual errors, the Tribunal may have inadvertently rewritten the rules of impeachment in the process.
She said the House will make an appeal in the hope that “once the facts are corrected, the Court will arrive at a different and more just conclusion.”
Contrary to what the SC believes, she said, then-majority leader Manuel Jose Dalipe had moved that the verified complaint, which was signed by more than the constitutional requirement of one-third of the total membership of the House, be transmitted to the Senate for trial pursuant to the Constitution.
“This motion was approved by Congress and the House immediately formed a panel of prosecutors,” she said. “The transmittal to the Senate was not unilateral o ministerial – it was a clear result of plenary action.”
Abante said the plenary voting and subsequent transmittal was recorded in House Journal No. 36 and in the official records of the House of Representatives.
She also disputed the Court’s claim that the House had failed to act on the first three impeachment complaints filed by civil society groups in December 2024, saying the House voted to archive the three complaints in favor of the fourth complaint filed by House leaders, which was the one transmitted to the Senate.
“This was made a few hours before the session adjourned because it was confirmed that the February complaint was signed and verified by one-third of the House members,” she said.
NEW REQUIREMENTS
Abante said the SC’s conclusion that the February complaint violated the constitutional one-year bar rule was clearly based on a “factual and procedural inversion.”
She said the basis of the court’s decision upon which the legal pronouncements of the court were based on was wrong because it did not consider include the plenary vote.
“The reading of the timeline of the House’s actions was wrong, believing a news article more than the House’ journal and the official report submitted to the court,” Abante said.
She said the decision is a cause for concern because the SC did not even refer to the House’s official records when it made the ruling. Because of its interpretation, Abante said, the SC in effect “imposed new requirements not found in either the Constitution or House rules.”
“According to the Court, a complaint signed and verified by one-third of the members still need to be read by every signatory and referred to the plenary for voting. It also said the respondent should have been given a chance to answer the complaint before it was referred to the Senate. However, there are no such requisites in our Constitution or in the Rules of the House,” she said.
“In short, the Court issued new rules that are not in the existing laws. It nullified the Articles of Impeachment based on a new rules of due process in favor of the respondent,” Abante added.
Abante said the SC’s ruling added “very stringent requirements” that not only complicate the impeachment process but also “encroach on the exclusive powers of the House.”
“These are requirements that essentially amend the Constitution and represent an unacceptable intrusion into the exclusive powers of the House of Representatives,” she said.
She also invoked the doctrine of operative facts, saying the House acted in good faith based on precedent rulings in Francisco and Gutierrez – both decided by the Supreme Court itself.
OTHER FORA
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said evidence in the Articles of Impeachment can be presented and tackled in other fora.
Lacson, in an interview with radio DZBB, said one forum is the budget deliberation of agencies such as the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education, where Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) could be tackled.
“We can ask questions on the issue during the budget deliberations,” he said.
Duterte is accused of allegedly irregularities in the use of the CIF of the OVP and the DepEd when she was still its Secretary.
Another alternative is for the Senate or the 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.
Earlier, Lacson had maintained that intelligence funds should be given only to agencies involved in actual intelligence work.
Lacson expressed belief the Senate should comply with the SC ruling barring it from proceeding with the impeachment trial.
“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,” he 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 added.
Earlier, several senators such as Bam Aquino, Kiko Pangilinan and Joel Villanueva said the Senate can still pursue the trial despite the SC ruling.
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol said the chamber will vote on what it will do after the SC ruling, a copy of which the Senate received on the “night of July 25.”
“Yes as part of the usual deliberative process of any collegial body based on Senate Rules,” Tongol said when asked by reporters if the Senate will still vote on what it will do after the Senate ruling.
SC VIOLATION
Former special for counsel for Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Catalino Generillo Jr. said the SC justices violated the Constitution and the High Court’s own internal rules when they resolved the petition of Duterte and her lawyers first, even if his own petition for mandamus was filed earlier and became ripe for resolution first.
Invoking Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2) of the 1987 Constitution, Generillo said his mandamus petition, filed on Feb. 14, 2025, was deemed ripe for decision or resolution “upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself” which came about on May 20, 2025.
This was because of the May 19, 2025 comment filed by the Office of the Solicitor (acting as counsel for the Senate) which was the last pleading relative to his petition docketed as G. R. No. 278311.
“The Duterte petition (G.R. No. 278353), which was filed on February 18, became ripe for decision on July 17, the day after the House of Representatives filed its Compliance with the Supreme Court. It was the last pleading of the case,” he pointed out.
Generillo, a seasoned trial lawyer who previously handled high-profile ill-gotten wealth cases for the PCGG, noted that the internal rules of the Supreme Court, restated the same provision of the Constitution under Rule 13, Section 1.
“My petition (G.R. No. 278311), which I filed on February 14, became ripe for decision on May 20 after the Senate, through Solicitor General, filed its Comment on May 19. It was the last pleading of the case. (The) SC therefore has the constitutional duty to render its decision on my petition first. The same duty is imposed by the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court,” he said.
He said the SC Justices gave “special treatment to the Duterte petition” which action amounts to “culpable and inexcusable violation of the Constitution.”
The July 25, 2025 SC decision declared the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional for having been filed after the one-year ban against the filing of a new impeachment complaint was tolled.
However, Generillo pointed out that in the OSG’s Comment dated May 19, 2025, it declared that the Senate was ready to proceed with the impeachment trial upon the resumption of session and presentation of the Articles of Impeachment on June 2, 2025. – With Ashzel Hachero and Peter Tabingo
It designated June 3 for the “convening of impeachment court and oathtaking of incumbent senator-judges”; June 4 for “issuance of summons”; June 14 to 24 for “reception of pleadings”; June 24 to July 25 for “pre-trial”; July 29 for “oathtaking of newly elected senator-judges before sitting as an impeachment court”; and July 30 as “start of trial.”
The OSG made the said manifestation by way of asking the Supreme Court to dismiss Generillo’s petition for being moot and academic because “there is not left for the Honorable Court to compel the Senate to do.”
“The SC should have decided my petition way back in May, June, or the first half of July. But SC slept on it. Instead, SC decided the Duterte petition in spite of the fact that the last pleading in the case was filed only on July 19,” he said.
The lawyer quoted the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in its 2017 decision in the case of Ombudsman vs. Conti bearing on respect for constitutional rights: ““Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.”
