The House of Representatives on Friday announced to “exhaust all remedies” available to uphold Congress’ independence in the wake of the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling barring the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte on grounds of violation of the one-year bar rule. 

House spokesperson Princess Abante said the move aims to “preserve the sanctity” of Congress’ constitutional role concerning the political nature of impeachment proceedings, which they believe is beyond the scope of the judicial body. 

“This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity,” she averred. “We respect the Supreme Court, but our constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here.”

Abante’s remarks came on the heels of the SC’s unanimous decision to halt the impending trial of Duterte in the Senate set in early August, declaring that the House-initiated complaint was “barred by the one-year rule.” 

“There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. This is what the Rule of Just Law means. This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment,” the decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen read. 

Citing Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph I of the Constitution, which provides the House with the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, Abante, however, argued that allowing judicial interference in this matter erodes “the very principle of checks and balances.”

Moreover, she contended that impeachment is a purely political process enshrined in the Constitution that must not be drowned out by any form of technicalities. Likewise, she emphasized that proceeding with the trial is never an option but an obligation of Congress to the public.

The House has yet to receive an official copy of the verdict, but vowed to thoroughly review it. 

‘Supreme Coddler’ 

The SC decision triggered backlash from pro-impeachment lawmakers, with Akbayan Rep. Perci Cendaña—one of the original endorsers of the impeachment complaint—accusing the high court of reducing itself to being the “Supreme Coddler” of the Vice President. 

He warned that the impeachment dismissal “sets a dangerous precedent” that encourages other erring politicians to hide behind the SC and get off scot-free from wrongdoings. 

But for Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, the SC decision was not only unprecedented, but it is “procedurally questionable.”

She argued that handing down the ruling without waiting for the House to file its formal response—as required by Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court—implies “shortcuts,” making the rendered decision “ex parte” or one-sided. 

“Instead of directing the House to file a comment, the Court issued a written interrogatory—a rare, if not irregular, move,” the former senator and Justice secretary asserted. “Somehow, the Supreme Court treated the House’s compliance with this interrogatory as if it were a formal responsive pleading. But let’s be clear: it was not.”

Members of the Makabayan bloc, also among the original endorsers, expressed “deep disappointment” with the high court’s decision. 

“This decision has given legal credence to what Malacañang and the Senate have been working toward—finding ways to prevent the impeachment trial since February,” ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio said. 

Earlier, the SC ordered the House to justify the legality of the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate for trial in light of twin petitions of VP Duterte and Mindanaoan lawyers who challenged its constitutionality. 

Duterte claimed that House leadership deliberately froze the first three impeachment complaints and did not refer to the Speaker’s office to avoid triggering the one-year constitutional bar while awaiting the fourth impeachment complaint.

Invoking the separation of powers, the House declined to respond to three of the many clarificatory questions sought by the SC, contending that these “internal” matters are beyond its jurisdiction and scrutiny as they were “not governed by any specific constitutional provision or House rule.”

The fourth petition, containing seven articles of impeachment, came only two months after the first three impeachment complaints were lodged by civilian and religious groups in December and endorsed by some members of the House.

The House prosecution panel has long maintained that Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5, which prohibits the filing of more than one impeachment case against the same official within a one-year period, was “never circumvented.” 

They argued that the initiation was only triggered when the fourth impeachment complaint was verified and signed by 215 lawmakers, or more than double the required 1/3 votes, allowing it to bypass committee hearings and be transmitted directly to the Senate for trial.