A motion for reconsideration was filed by the House of Representatives through the Office of the Solicitor General, urging the Supreme Court to reverse its 25 July 2025 ruling on the controversial impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.
The high court decision in G.R. Nos. 278353 and 278359 was challenged by the motion, arguing that the ruling was based on erroneous factual and legal conclusions, particularly in relation to the constitutional process for initiating impeachment and the application of the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution.
The House in its motion asserted that it committed no grave abuse of discretion and complied fully with constitutional and jurisprudential requirements.
The MR said the first three impeachment complaints against the Vice President were not ignored but were included in the Order of Business within the required ten-session-day period.
The fourth complaint, which was endorsed by at least one-third of the House members, was validly processed and transmitted to the Senate, arguing the transmission of the fourth complaint effectively activated the one-year bar rule, rendering the three earlier complaints moot.
The motion also disputed the Supreme Court’s factual findings, particularly the sequence of events that took place on 5 February 2025.
According to the House, the fourth impeachment complaint had already been adopted and sent to the Senate before the first three complaints were formally archived.
It argued the timeline, negates the Court’s conclusion that the House violated the one-year prohibition on multiple impeachment complaints against the same official.
The house further arguedthat the Constitution does not place one mode of impeachment above another emphasizing that complaints filed by citizens should not take precedence over those endorsed by one-third of the House, as both are constitutionally valid paths to impeachment.
On the issue of due process, the House maintained that such procedural guarantees are reserved for the impeachment trial in the Senate and are not required during the House’s preparatory proceedings. The motion argued that the Constitution does not obligate the House to give the respondent an opportunity to be heard before transmitting Articles of Impeachment.
It also urged the Court to apply any new doctrines or interpretations only on a prospective basis. It argued that its actions were guided by existing legal precedents, particularly the 2003 decision in Francisco v. House of Representatives, which has long governed the procedures surrounding impeachment complaints.
Further, the House warned against what it described as judicial overreach. It stressed that impeachment is a political process entrusted by the Constitution solely to Congress, and that the Judiciary should exercise restraint when reviewing the internal proceedings of a co-equal branch of government.
The house in its prayer, asked the high bench to revoke the immediately executory nature of the 25 July decision, reconsider its ruling, dismiss the petitions for lack of merit, and grant any other relief deemed just and equitable.
--30—