House seeks reversal of SC ruling on VP impeachment

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.

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 only officially impeached on 5 February, during the last session day of Congress before it adjourned for the mid-term elections. 

With 215 lawmakers signing the complaint — more than double the required 1/3 votes 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 VP to be heard. 

Abante, in response, had no qualms implying 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’s nowhere in the Charter that requires an impeached official to be given the opportunity to be heard first prior to the submission of the articles to the Senate, especially if the complaint already mustered the required one-third votes. 

“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 to allow her to be heard, but she remained mum on the issue.

Furthermore, Abante disputed the SC’s assertion that the fourth impeachment complaint advanced to the Senate even with the lack of plenary approval, calling it “categorically false,” which can be proven by the official records of the House under Journal 36.

Assuming it’s true that the articles of impeachment had not been approved by the plenary, the House could not have immediately formed the panel of House prosecutors on the same day, according to Abante.

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

The SC, she added, was also mistaken in claiming that the House did not act upon the first three impeachment complaints until the 19th Congress terminated because it was put on “archive” hours before the adjournment, since the fourth complaint garnered 215 signatures. 

In slamming the SC, Abante called its conclusion that the fourth impeachment complaint violated the one-year bar 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 pointed out that the high court’s ruling added “very stringent requirements” that essentially amend the Constitution and unacceptably encroach the exclusive powers of the House of Representatives on 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 these matters are “deeply concerning” and necessitate a reconsideration.

The SC decision triggered backlash from pro-impeachment lawmakers, with some citing separation of powers and 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 of being a “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. 

Meanwhile, retired SC associate justice Noel Tijam countered that the fact that there was no dissent in the unanimous decision merely indicates that there was indeed a violation of the one-year bar.

“The provision on the one-year ban rule on multiple filing of impeachment complaints is stated in simple, clear, and understandable language,” he said. “There is no room for confusion, obfuscation or obscurity.”

Tijam also dismissed claims that the SC committed a judicial overreach, asserting that it’s only “upholding the primacy and dominance of the fundamental law of the land.”

'Twin petitions'

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 them 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 the one-year bar was “never circumvented.” 

They argued that the initiation was only triggered when the fourth impeachment complaint was verified and signed by 215 lawmakers, allowing it to bypass committee hearings and be transmitted directly to the Senate for trial.