The House of Representatives expressed optimism on Monday that the Supreme Court (SC) will likely rule in favor of its petition seeking to overturn the tribunal’s unanimous decision that declared the hotly debated impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, null, and void ab initio (from the beginning). 

“The House of Representatives is very hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse its decision, primarily because of the factual premise on which the first decision was based,” House spokesperson Princess Abante said in an interview.

“If there is a discrepancy in the factual basis of the decision, especially if it contradicts the official record of the House of Representatives, then the Supreme Court's decision can very well be reversed.” 

The House official was specifically referring to the salient points raised by the SC in unanimously striking down the VP’s impeachment on 25 July. This includes that the House transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, allegedly “without a plenary vote,” citing a news report by ABS-CBN. 

The media network, however, was quick to debunk the SC’s conclusion, saying that the news article contains no such claims. 

Another key contributing factor to the potential reversal is the SC’s introduction of a new set of requirements that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Abante posits that these grave errors committed by the high court strengthen the House’s position in aggressively seeking a thorough review of the said ruling. 

“Even on the issue of adding a requirement…in the second mode of initiating impeachment, the legal argument presented by counsel of the House of Representatives, the Office of the Solicitor General, was also strong. That’s why we can see that there is a high possibility that the decision may still change, precisely what the House is hoping for,” Abante averred. 

The SC cited a handful of errors purportedly committed by the House in initiating the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte on 5 February, signed by 215 House members, which automatically constituted the articles of impeachment. The Senate received the articles on the same day, but did not convene as an impeachment court due to a lack of time. 

At the time, Congress went on a four-month break starting 6 February to pave the way for the mid-term campaign season. 

The SC decision states that the transmittal was irregular because the House swiftly advanced the articles to the Senate without the plenary action, and that the House filed multiple complaints against the same official, in violation of the one-year bar under Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution. 

Last week, former SC associate justice Adolfo Azcuna lamented that the high court went beyond its judicial role to interpret the Constitution by imposing seven new rules on how an impeachment case should be initiated — a prerogative exclusively reserved to the House of Representatives. 

Azcuna, a member of the Constitutional Commission that crafted the 1987 Constitution, argued that the SC’s role is limited to interpreting provisions of the Constitution that are already specified in the rules, including those governing impeachment. 

But when the SC required the House to ensure that its members were given ample time to peruse the complaint before affixing their signatures, and the same was properly circulated, Azcuna stressed that he high court effectively established new requirements that the chamber must follow, overstepping its exclusive power to initiate an impeachment case. 

“That is presumed; you do not have to prove that you understood the articles. That’s what the Supreme Court would least require of our legislators in future impeachment cases. To mind you, this is overstepping the bounds of the Constitution,” Azcuna said in an interview on Thursday, noting that such a “comprehension test” is an “insult to the minds of legislators.”

Last week, the Senate voted 19-4-1 to archive the articles of impeachment against Duterte in adherence to the SC ruling. But the House remains headstrong, insisting that the battle against impeachment is far from over, unless the SC rules with finality. 

“The House of Representatives will continue to look into the available legal remedies. It’s important to ensure that the integrity of the institution will not be jeopardized when it comes to the exclusive power granted to it by the Constitution in initiating proceedings,” Abante said.

Disputing accusations of defiance, Abante asserted that the House fully respects the SC as a co-equal body. She, however, argued that the House’s filing of a motion for reconsideration is simply an exercise of legal remedy in the face of an erroneous decision.

Meantime, the House remains on standby, keeping an eye on the Senate’s response in the event the SC ruled in favor of the House. 

The SC had affirmed that its decision was immediately executory, but the House countered that it’s not equivalent to finality and that they will await the high court’s decision on their petition.