The House of Representatives asserted Sunday that the Supreme Court (SC) gravely erred in its ruling barring Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case on grounds of unconstitutionality, arguing that the pertinent portions of the decision contradict the chamber’s official records, thereby warranting a reversal.

House spokesperson Princess Abante confirmed that a motion for reconsideration is already underway to contest the “factual errors” in the unanimous SC decision — specifically, its conclusion that the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate “without plenary vote” and that the House circumvented the one-year bar.

‘Nonexistent rules’

The SC verdict, handed down on 25 July, declared the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional, null, and void ab initio (from the beginning) for violating the one-year bar under 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.

To recall, Duterte was slapped with three impeachment complaints in a span of barely two weeks in December last year, just before Congress went into Christmas break. However, she was officially impeached only on 5 February, during the last session day of Congress before it adjourned for the midterm elections.

With 215 lawmakers signing the complaint — more than double the required one-third vote of the entire House — the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted directly to the Senate, bypassing the committee hearings.

According to the SC decision, Duterte was not afforded due process because the articles were immediately sent to the Senate without allowing the Vice President to be heard.

Abante, in response, implied that the high court may have inadvertently imposed new requirements that do not exist in the rules on impeachment enshrined in the Constitution.

She argued that there is nothing in the Charter requiring an impeached official to be given the opportunity to be heard prior to the submission of the articles to the Senate, especially if the complaint already mustered the one-third threshold.

“There is no such requirement in our Constitution or the House Rules. [The SC] invalidated the Articles of Impeachment based on new standards of due process for the respondent,” she stressed.

Nonetheless, she clarified that Duterte was repeatedly invited to the committee hearings during the House probe into her confidential funds but remained silent on the issue.

Furthermore, Abante disputed the SC’s assertion that the fourth impeachment complaint advanced to the Senate without plenary approval, calling it “categorically false,” which can be disproven by the official House records under Journal 36.

Assuming it were true that the articles had not been approved by the plenary, the House could not have immediately formed the panel of House prosecutors on the same day, she added.

“The transmittal to the Senate was not unilateral or ministerial — it was a clear result of plenary action,” she argued.

‘Mistaken’

The SC, she added, was also mistaken in claiming that the House failed to act on the first three impeachment complaints before the 19th Congress adjourned. She said those complaints were archived hours before adjournment because the fourth complaint had already garnered 215 signatures.

In slamming the SC, Abante described its conclusion that the fourth impeachment complaint violated the one-year bar as a “factual and procedural inversion” that was “anchored on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official record of the House.”

Moreover, she argued that the high court’s ruling added “very stringent requirements” that essentially amend the Constitution and unacceptably encroach on the exclusive powers of the House over impeachment.

“To disregard these facts is not only a disservice to the truth — it is a disservice to the Constitution itself,” she said. Abante reiterated that the House respects the high court, but said these matters are “deeply concerning” and warrant reconsideration.

The SC decision triggered backlash from pro-impeachment lawmakers, with some citing separation of powers and insisting that the trial shall proceed, given that the Senate had already convened as an impeachment court.

Among those castigating the SC was Akbayan Rep. Perci Cendaña — the original endorser of the first impeachment complaint — who branded the SC as a “Supreme Coddler” of the Vice President.