Romualdez on Senate archiving of Sara Impeachment: Why the rush?

House Speaker Martin Romualdez on Thursday lashed out at the Senate over its rushed move to “bury” the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling nullifying the complaint has yet to reach its finality. 

“The Senate — not sitting as an impeachment court — moved swiftly to archive the complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, despite the case still pending before the Supreme Court… Why the rush?” he questioned.

Romualdez’s statement came on the heels of the Senate’s vote to archive the articles in compliance with the unanimous decision of the SC declaring the same unconstitutional, null, and void ab initio (from the beginning) for violating 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.

The House chief, who had been on the receiving end of criticism from some senators who voted in favor of the SC decision, argued that the case is still “active” due to their pending motion for reconsideration at the high court. He lamented that the Senate’s decision to move the articles to the archive effectively buried the complaint, thereby undermining the petition and the House’s sole power over impeachment. 

“The filing of the complaint was not rushed. What was rushed — remarkably — was its burial. This moment will be remembered,” he stressed.

‘Personal attacks’ 

Romualdez also clapped back at the senators who insinuated that the VP’s impeachment was politically motivated, aimed at derailing her possible presidential bid in 2028.

Romualdez did not name names, but recall that Senate President Chiz Escudero took an indirect swipe at the House chief by advising members of the House not to allow themselves “to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of a few who did things haphazardly, gravely abused their discretion, and violated due process.”

The Senate leader also warned that the Senate is “not a playground to run after your political enemies” and that they will not allow themselves to be an “accomplice in any grand scheme.”

Meanwhile, Senator Imee Marcos, who has been at odds with her cousin Romualdez, urged House lawmakers to replace the Speaker instead of aggressively pushing for the removal of Duterte from office.

“To my dear congressmen, I have a suggestion... Instead of trying to remove a person that the people chose, voted for, and loved, why don't you just change the person you elected? What if you just changed your Speaker?" Marcos said sarcastically.

In response, Romualdez said, “This was never about political maneuvering…Yet we have been met with personal attacks, sweeping accusations, and a narrative that seeks to reduce a solemn constitutional duty into mere power play. That’s not just unfair—it is dangerous.”

Allies of Romualdez were quick to take up the cudgels for the House chief, with Senior Deputy Speaker David Suarez bluntly reminding Marcos that she has no business interfering with the internal affairs of a co-equal chamber.

“No senator, regardless of stature or history, has the right to dictate who should lead the House. That decision rests solely with the elected members of this chamber,” Suarez said, criticizing Marcos’ suggestion as “blatant overreach.”

Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V also claimed that keeping Romualdez at the helm was “a collective institutional decision.”

“Strong statements may grab headlines, but they do little to uphold the dignity of our institutions. We must not allow a legitimate constitutional process like impeachment to be dragged into a political circus.”

Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker Jefferson Khonghun lamented Marcos’ remarks against the Speaker as “out of bounds,” with Tingog Rep. Jude Acidre, also a close ally of Romualdez, branding it “dangerous statements that cross a line.”

In the same vein, Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. dismissed insinuations of some senators that the House weaponized the impeachment to prevent future political contests.

“The impeachment process is not about 2028. It is about whether public funds were used during a time when no legal mandate had yet been conferred to an office. That is a clear question of constitutional integrity—not political ambition,” Abante emphasized.

No violation

The House has maintained that there was no violation of the one-year bar, asserting that it was the filing of the fourth impeachment complaint, constituting the articles of impeachment, that brought the one-year prohibition into effect.

This contravenes the high court’s verdict that the articles were barred because the House’s putting the first three complaints in the archive rendered it “effectively terminated and dismissed,” which triggered the one-year bar.

In its motion, the House prayed that the SC reverse its verdict, invoking “misinterpretation” of the one-year bar, factual errors, and insistence that Duterte was deprived of due process. The SC, in response, affirmed that the decision was immediately executory. 

Nineteen senators, including Senator Rodante Marcoleta, who made the motion, voted to abide by the SC ruling, outnumbering four who voted against archiving the impeachment. Senator Ping Lacson was the only one to abstain.

Ahead of the voting, House prosecution panel spokesperson Antonio Bucoy had already warned that it would be a “waste of time” if the Senate insisted on doing so because it would soon be compelled to reconvene as an impeachment court again if the SC reverses its ruling in favor of the House. 

Immediately executory, he stressed, is not equivalent to finality. It only allows the Senate to enforce the order, but the same is not absolutely final since it’s still subject to reversal.

Romualdez insisted that the House exercised its exclusive power to initiate impeachment “lawfully, transparently, and in good faith.”  

“Not out of spite, but out of duty. Not to attack, but to ask for answers—answers the Vice President never gave,” he averred. 

Nevertheless, the Speaker warned that the battle against impeachment is far from over, ensuring that “no public office is ever beyond the reach of accountability.”

To recall, Duterte was slapped with three impeachment complaints in barely two weeks in December last year, but was only impeached on 5 February after the fourth complaint was signed and endorsed by 215 House members.

The votes overwhelmingly surpassed the one-third threshold to bypass committee hearings and be transmitted directly to the Senate for trial—a shortcut route allowed by the Constitution—and constituted the articles of impeachment.

The SC decision states, however, that the House trampled Duterte’s right to due process when it expedited the proceeding, robbing the VP of the opportunity to counter the allegations against her. The House, however, argued that the SC invented a new requirement that does not exist in the Constitution, which necessitates the need for a reversal.

The seven articles of impeachment stemmed largely from Duterte's alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education during her tenure as DepEd secretary. She was also accused of plotting to assassinate the family of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Duterte had repeatedly denied allegations of corruption, insisting that her confidential fund usage was lawful and that her remarks about assassinating the Marcos family were “taken out of context.”