Not an act of defiance, but one in keeping with constitutional stewardship

That's how Speaker Martin Romualdez framed the House of Representatives' filing of a motion for reconsideration (MR) Monday, Aug. 1, on the Supreme Court's (SC) decision last month declaring Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment case as unconstitutional.

"With utmost respect for the Constitution, in defense of institutional balance, and in the name of the Filipino people whom we are sworn to represent, the House of Representatives today filed a [MR] before the [SC] of the Philippines," Romualdez said in a statement.

"This is not an act of defiance or disrespect. It is an exercise in constitutional stewardship—an affirmation that every branch must act with fidelity to the Charter that gives us all our power," the Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD) president said.

The impeachment complaint--which the high court voided due to a technicality--emanated from the House last Feb. 5.

The Office of the Secretary General (OSG) represents the House in the case before the SC, which resulted from a petition to dismiss from Vice President Duterte's camp.

"We act not to provoke a clash of institutions, but to prevent the erosion of the people’s right to accountability," Romualdez said.

"What is at stake is far greater than mere procedure or timing. What is at stake goes far beyond the 20th Congress. What is at stake is whether the people retain their power to hold the most powerful officials in government accountable—through the very branch that speaks in their name," he further said.

Romualdez went on to highlight key points in the filed MR, foremost of which is the House's assertion that the impeachment rap that it transmitted to the Senate last February didn't violate the one-year bar rule.

"The [SC] held that by acting on the Feb. 5 complaint, the House violated the constitutional bar against initiating more than one impeachment proceeding within a year. But that is not what happened," he said.

Romualdez said the 300-plus-strong House "initiated only one proceeding: the Feb. 5 complaint that met the one-third threshold". The particular complaint was signed by at least 215 solons.

The three other impeachment raps filed in December 2024 weren't acted upon by the House and ended up getting achieved.

"This is fully consistent with jurisprudence. In Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court itself defined 'initiation' as either: referral to the Committee on Justice, or direct endorsement by one-third of the members," Romualdez said.

"The House followed this principle with care and deliberation. We transmitted the Feb. 5 complaint to the Senate before acting on the first three, ensuring that only one proceeding was initiated—and that the one-year bar was not violated, but respected," the Speaker said.

The Leyte 1st district congressman also echoed the argument that the high court misunderstood and "reversed" the chronology of events concerning the Feb. 5 complaint. "Based on that factual error, it struck down a process we executed with utmost fidelity to the Constitution."

The SC further ruled that the Vice President was denied due process because she was not furnished a copy of the complaint and was not given an opportunity to respond. "But these are not constitutional requirements," noted Romualdez.

"Nowhere in Article XI does the 1987 Constitution require the House to solicit an answer from the respondent or conduct another plenary vote after the one-third endorsement is secured," he said.

He said every impeachment case brought under the existing Charter have followed the same path.

"Due process is paramount—but the Constitution safeguards it through the Senate trial, not by limiting the House’s exclusive power to initiate. If these rules had existed earlier, we would have followed them.

"But to invent them after the fact, and strike down a valid impeachment for not satisfying them, is not only unfair—it is constitutionally suspect," Romualdez said.