Members of the House prosecution panel in what would have been the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took in stride the Supreme Court's (SC) decision Thursday, Jan. 29 to uphold its declaration that the 19th Congress impeachment complaint was unconstitutional.

Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua, Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, and Bukidnon 2nd district Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores all took the adverse ruling with a forward-looking mindset.

Chua said discussions are underway on how best to amend the impeachment rules in line with the high court’s decision, which affirmed its July 2025 ruling that struck down the impeachment complaint pursued by the House against the Vice President in the previous 19th Congress.

“As a member of the House prosecution team and of the House Committee on Justice, I will confer with my colleagues on how best to revise the rules on Impeachment as we deem fit and in ways that comply with the [SC] decision,” Chua said.

“We will receive inputs from the complainants, some of whom are now Members of the House,” he added.

Chua also said changes in the composition of the House prosecution team remain "possible".

While expressing disagreement with the SC ruling, Chua said he would abide by it, citing his duty as a lawyer and officer of the court. "[I] swore to respect and uphold our system anchored on the rule of law,” he noted.

Chua clarified that his statement reflected his personal position and not that of the entire House or the prosecution panel.

De Lima--who was tapped to serve as prosecutor should the impeachment proceedings cross over to the 20th Congress--underscored that the SC ruling didn't absolve or vindicate anyone.

"SC's ruling rests on technicality. Magagamit ito sa susunod na filing (This can be used in the next filing). Still not a vindication. Wala pa ring nalinis na pangalan (No one's name has been absolved)," said the former senator and Department of Justice (DOJ) secretary in an X post Thursday.

She gave a more detailed response to the ruling in a subsequent statement Friday, Jan. 30.

"In upholding its original decision, the [SC] also affirmed that its ruling does not absolve VP Sara Duterte of the offenses she is accused of committing. The Court’s decision was based on procedural grounds and did not rule on the merits of the allegations against the VP.

"Kaya nga pwedeng-pwedeng magsampa uli ng impeachment case laban kay VP Sara (That's why a new impeachment case can be filed against VP Sara) even with the same substantive grounds contained in last year’s complaint," De Lima said.

There seven articles of impeachment in the defeated complaint are as follows: Conspiracy to assassinate President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez; Malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds; Bribery and corruption in Department of Education (DepEd); Unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets; Involvement in extrajudicial killings (EJK); Destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder; and the totality of respondent's conduct as Vice President.

The Makabayan bloc had earlier announced that they would file at the House of Representatives fresh impeachment raps against Vice President Duterte next week, upon the lapse of one-year ban on such complaints.

Meanwhile, Flores, a vice chairman of the Committee on Justice, says the House would abide by the SC ruling even as it explores ways to preserve its role as a co-equal branch of government.

“The House of Representatives will heed the [SC] as the final arbiter on constitutional and legal matters,” Flores said.

“There still might be some elbow room on how the House can reflect the due process requirements stated in the SC decision but still upholding the constitutional prerogatives and authority of the House on impeachment matters,” he said.

Flores stressed that revisions to the impeachment rules must be "carefully worded".

“I fully understand the intent of the [SC] on infusing due process into the impeachment process. We will read the decision and separate opinions in their minute details. We will then work out the precise statutory construction necessary to revise the impeachment rules,” Flores said.

“We were prepared for this," he further said.