MANILA — The House of Representatives is mounting a fierce challenge against the Supreme Court’s stunning decision to strike down the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte — filing a 61-page motion for reconsideration aimed at reviving the case and reasserting Congress’s authority as a co-equal branch of government.

The motion, filed Monday, August 4, through the Office of the Solicitor General, comes just days after the Supreme Court voted unanimously to void the impeachment complaint against Duterte, declaring it unconstitutional and barring the Senate from holding a trial.

House Speaker Martin Romualdez fired back, accusing the high court of overstepping its bounds.

“The House will not bow in silence.” Romualdez said defending the House’s actions amid the decision from the Supreme Court.

“When serious charges are raised against those who hold the highest offices, it is the House — not the courts — that is called upon to ask the first question: Is this official still worthy of the public trust?” Romualdez said in a sharp statement. “That power is not shared. It is not subject to prior approval. It is not conditional.”

Sara Duterte, daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte, faces serious allegations: graft, bribery, conspiracy to commit murder, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violations of the Constitution — largely tied to the disbursement of her confidential funds while in office.

Not a Provocation

The Speaker insist that the motion for reconsideration is in full respect of the law as well as check and balance in the government.

“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty.” Romualdez said. “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 Speaker cited Article XI, Section 3(1) of the Constitution: “The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.”

“We filed this Motion for Reconsideration not to provoke, but to protect. Not to assert supremacy, but to restore balance.” Romualdez emphasized. “Because if impeachments can be blocked by misunderstood facts, or rules made after the fact, then accountability is not upheld—it is denied.”

Due Process? House Says Senate Trial Is the Process

On the issue of due process — the Supreme Court had ruled that Duterte was denied her right to be heard — the House responded that impeachment is designed to guarantee due process through the Senate trial, not pre-trial hearings in the House.

“Due process is paramount — but the Constitution safeguards it through the Senate trial, not by limiting the House’s exclusive power to initiate.”

The House motion emphasized that Section 3(4), Article XI of the Constitution is clear: once one-third of House members endorse a verified complaint, it automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate trial must begin forthwith.

Oral Arguments Demanded

The House is also seeking oral arguments, arguing that the justices should have heard their side before voiding the case — especially since the ruling was based on procedural grounds and interpretation of facts.

“The irony is not lost on us: the Court faulted the House for lack of due process, even as it ruled without fully extending due process to the House.”

He cautioned that the high court is venturing into dangerous territory by effectively defining the terms of its own potential impeachment.

“When the Court establishes rules for impeaching itself and other high officials, it risks writing the terms of its own immunity,” he added.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on August 6 on whether to proceed with the impeachment trial.

📷 Martin Romualdez FB