SPEAKER Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez on Monday vowed to uphold the constitutional role of the House of Representatives in the face of a Supreme Court (SC) ruling that nullified the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, saying the chamber would not remain silent in the face of a clear institutional overstep.
“We speak now not because it is easy, but because it is necessary,” Speaker Romualdez said. “The House will not bow in silence.”
Speaker Romualdez then reaffirmed the exclusive constitutional mandate of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, as the chamber filed a Motion for Reconsideration urging the Supreme Court to revisit and correct its ruling that nullified the impeachment case against VP Duterte.
“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty,” he declared.
“With full respect for the Constitution, in defense of institutional balance, and in the name of the Filipino people, the House of Representatives has filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court,” he added.
“We do not challenge the authority of the Court. We seek only to preserve the rightful role of the House – the voice of the people – in the process of accountability,” Speaker Romualdez said.
He emphasized that the appeal was filed to correct factual misreadings and retroactive procedural burdens imposed by the Supreme Court, which he said undermine both the Constitution and the people’s right to demand accountability from high officials.
“Let us be clear: The Constitution says: ‘The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.’ That power is not shared. Not subject to pre-approval. And not conditional,” Speaker Romualdez stressed.
“Yet in G.R. No. 278353, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, based on a misreading of facts and a retroactive imposition of new rules,” he continued.
He reiterated that the appeal is not to provoke a clash of institutions, but to prevent the erosion of the people’s right to accountability.
Speaker Romualdez underscored that the House acted within the ten-session-day limit provided in the Constitution when it transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint on February 5, 2025.
“On February 5, 2025, the House transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint – filed and signed by 215 Members – to the Senate. Only after this transmittal did we archive the earlier three complaints. That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four,” he explained.
“Even the Court’s own precedent – Francisco v. House – supports this: Only one impeachment can be initiated, and that initiation begins with a one-third endorsement or a referral. That is exactly what the House did,” he added.
That complaint was duly verified and endorsed by more than one-third of all Members, making it the sole basis for trial.
Speaker Romualdez also addressed the due process issue raised by the Court when it said VP Duterte was not allowed an opportunity to respond.
“The Court also said the Vice President was denied due process because she was not furnished a copy or given a chance to respond,” he said. “But nowhere in the Constitution is that required before transmittal. In fact, in all past impeachments, the trial and the right to be heard take place in the Senate.”
Speaker the SC may be making up new rules that have retroactive effects that may not in line with the Constitution.
“To invent new rules now, and apply them retroactively, is not just unfair. It is constitutionally suspect,” he stated.
“Let me say this with candor: A government of laws cannot allow any branch to become the judge of its own accountability,” he added.
Speaker Romualdez said no branch of government should dictate the boundaries of its own accountability, and this is especially true when the very nature of the dispute involves the process by which such officials may be held answerable to the people.
“The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Its wisdom is deep. Its authority is real. But its Members – like the President and the Vice President – are also impeachable officers,” he noted.
“When the Court lays down rules for how it, or others like it, may be impeached, it puts itself in the dangerous position of writing conditions that may shield itself from future accountability,” he continued. “That is not how checks and balances work.”
Speaker Romualdez explained that the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration was driven not by institutional rivalry but by the need to clarify facts and protect the constitutional process, stressed that the issue at hand is not merely legal but one that strikes at the foundation of accountability in a democratic system.
“We filed this Motion for Reconsideration not to provoke, but to protect. Not to assert supremacy, but to restore balance,” he said.
“Because if impeachments can be blocked by misunderstood facts, or rules made after the fact, then accountability is not upheld: it is denied,” he added.
For Speaker Romualdez, standing by the mandate of the House is not a threat to democracy but a defense of it.
“To dissent is not to defy. To demand accountability is not to destabilize. To insist on constitutional integrity is not to weaken democracy, it is to strengthen it,” he stated.
