The House of Representatives on Friday said it would “exhaust all remedies” to uphold Congress’ independence in the wake of the Supreme Court (SC) ruling blocking the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte for violating the one-year bar rule.
House spokesperson Rep. Princess Abante said the move aims to “preserve the sanctity” of Congress’s constitutional role and the political nature of impeachment proceedings, which the congressmen 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 decision to halt the impending trial of Duterte in the Senate set for 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 argued that allowing judicial interference in this matter erodes “the very principle of checks and balances.”
She noted that an impeachment is a political process rooted in the Constitution and should not be derailed by legal technicalities.
Likewise, she emphasized that proceeding with the trial was never an option but an obligation of Congress to the public.
The House has yet to receive an official copy of the ruling but has vowed to thoroughly review the Supreme Court’s decision.
‘Supreme Coddler’
The SC decision triggered a 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 dismissal of the impeachment case “sets a dangerous precedent,” potentially allowing other erring officials to hide behind the Supreme Court and escape accountability.
For Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, the SC decision was not only unprecedented, it was “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 — implied “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.