The House of Representatives (HOR) sought the reversal of the Supreme Court’s (SC) immediately executory decision that declared unconstitutional the articles of impeachment filed before the Senate, as impeachment court, against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The HOR’s motion for reconsideration was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) led by Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe.

In its decision issued last July 25, the SC declared that the impeachment complaint filed by the HOR on Feb. 5, 2025 is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

In its motion, the HOR asked the SC “to uphold the Constitution, which gives life to all the institutions of government, and with the people, who in turn, are the true sovereign, and to whom all accountability, trust, and power are owed.”

It told the SC that it respects the High Court’s power of judicial review to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

But it pointed out that “this expanded power is not absolute, unlimited, nor all encompassing” and “like other powers bestowed by the Constitution, it is limited by the foundational document itself.”

The HOR said that all its actions in the impeachment of Vice President Duterte were all in accordance with all relevant constitutional provisions and in line with jurisprudential standards.

It said there was “no neglect or willful inaction in relations to the first three impeachment complaints, and that they were handled within the applicable constitutionally sanctioned time periods.”

It also said the fourth impeachment complaint filed by at least one-third of the HOR members was not in violation of the one-year ban.  It noted that what was filed was the fourth impeachment complaint thatcaused the one-year ban to take effect.

Also, the HOR said there was no violation of due process in the fourth impeachment complaint since “the due process contemplated by the Constitution in impeachment has always been that which occurs before the Senate – the trial proper.”

At the same time, the HOR challenged the SC’s decreed new rules to be followed in impeachment proceedings, and the new doctrines on the reckoning point of the one-year ban and what may trigger it.

“At most, the Honorable Court can only apply and enforce these new rules prospectively in the commencement of future impeachment complaints,” it said.

It also said that the SC “cannot utilized these newly formulated rules, safeguards, or guidelines to say that the House violated the due process clause and acted with grave abuse of discretion just because it did not comply with the new prescriptions as set forth in the decision” as “it would simply be unfair.”

Thus, it said the SC’s finding of grave abuse of discretion on its part “would be erroneous.”

The HOR asked the SC to immediately suspend “the immediately executory nature of the decision” in the impeachment petitions.

Two petitions were filed before the SC against Duterte’s impeachment.

Last February, the Vice President asked the SC to nullify the impeachment complaint for constitutional violation.

Another petition against the impeachment was filed by several lawyers, led by Esraelito P. Torreon, and residents of Davao City.

Both petitions were ordered consolidated by the SC in its resolution issued last July 8.

In its decision, the SC said that all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review, “considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process.”

It also said: “The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure but with political characteristics. It may be sui generis (of its own kind) but it is not a purely political proceeding. This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases, applies to the entire impeachment process.”

 The SC, however, clarified that “it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting Feb. 6, 2026.”