For the Senate majority, the divisive impeachment process should be considered dead and buried but the House of Representatives said its counterpart should not pull the plug until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling.
The House said it will challenge the 25 July 2025 Supreme Court 13-0-2 decision declaring the impeachment articles unconstitutional.
The violation of the one-year bar rule and the lack of due process for the respondent, Vice President Sara Duterte, were cited as the basis for the ruling.
It would be “premature” for the Senate to act on the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision involving the impeachment case against the Vice President before the House has finished pursuing its legal remedies, according to House spokesperson Matty Princess Abante.
Abante indicated that the Senate impeachment court should hold off on the SC decision until House prosecutors have exhausted all legal remedies.
“Let us be clear: the decision of the Supreme Court is not yet final,” Abante emphasized.
She stressed that the House, which the Constitution mandates would initiate all impeachment proceedings, plans to file a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
“This is a matter of constitutional right and institutional integrity,” she said.
Abante urged the Senate to allow the High Tribunal to address the House’s forthcoming MR, which will allege factual errors in the Court’s ruling.
She warned that any move by the Senate to abandon the impeachment trial at this stage would be viewed as undermining due process and “a political shortcut that undermines the constitutional role of the House.”
“Any premature action — such as a Senate vote effectively abandoning the impeachment trial — may be interpreted as a disregard of due process. Worse, it may be construed as a political shortcut that undermines the constitutional role of the House,” she said.
Not about Congress
“The integrity of the impeachment process must be preserved. This is not just about the House or the Senate. This is about protecting our democratic institutions and upholding the system of checks and balances embedded in our Constitution,” Abante asserted.
Abante called on the senators to exercise “prudence and patience” and allow the judicial process to take its course, reiterating that the House remains committed to the rule of law.
“The House remains committed to the rule of law and will exhaust all legal remedies to protect our constitutional mandate — and to ensure that accountability is not casually brushed aside,” she concluded.
IBP behind SC ruling
The mandatory organization of Filipino lawyers, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), broke its silence over the impeachment debate by issuing a statement backing the Supreme Court’s authority to review the proceedings, as the “political nature” of impeachment does not place it beyond the reach of the Constitution.
The IBP cited the principle of checks and balances, saying the High Court’s power to interpret constitutional limitations is a fundamental part of the nation’s democratic framework.
“This authority is rooted in checks and balances: the very design that guards against the excesses of any branch,” the IBP said.
While recognizing the House of Representatives’ exclusive power to initiate an impeachment, the IBP pointed out that this power is not absolute.
The group argued that a judicial review does not “diminish” the legislature’s role but instead “dignifies it” by ensuring that the process adheres to the Constitution.
Decision demands adherence
The IBP, in a message to critics, warned against inciting public repudiation of the court’s authority.
The group cautioned that such actions could “disturb the equilibrium of powers and imperil the integrity of our democratic institutions, especially when appropriate legal remedies remain available within the framework of our constitutional system.”
The statement ended with a powerful appeal for adherence to the rule of law.
The IBP said in its statement, “If every adverse ruling becomes an invitation to disobey, the law ceases to be a constraint on power and becomes its casualty. The Constitution does not require agreement. It demands adherence.”