House Rejects New Impeachment Rules Imposed by Supreme Court
MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives firmly stated that impeachment proceedings should not be burdened with technicalities or requirements that even the Constitution does not demand. This was emphasized in their response to the Supreme Court regarding the impeachment process involving Vice President Sara Duterte.
In a detailed 70-page motion for reconsideration, the House rejected the so-called “retroactive due process rule,” stressing that the Constitution’s provisions should guide impeachment, not additional restrictions. “The House categorically rejects the due process rules which the assailed decision lays down for carrying out impeachment proceedings under Article XI, Section 3 (4). These are not called for by the Constitution and unduly interfere with the House’s own prerogatives,” the motion said, filed electronically through official channels.
Constitutional Boundaries and Due Process
The Supreme Court had set seven guidelines to ensure fairness during impeachment. One key guideline requires the House to provide the respondent with the Articles and evidence, allowing a reasonable time for response. These materials, along with the respondent’s comments, must then be shared with all House members before a vote on transmittal.
The House agrees that due process is important but pointed out that due process is already embedded in the Constitution through the Senate trial. They argued that requiring Vice President Duterte to respond to the complaint under the Bill of Rights’ due process clause ignores the distinct purposes of the constitutional provisions. “Article III protects citizens from government overreach, while Article XI empowers citizens to hold powerful officials accountable,” the House explained.
Moreover, the House emphasized that under the Constitution, the only requirement to trigger transmission to the Senate is a complaint supported by one-third of the House members. “The Constitution requires nothing else,” the House underscored.
Opposing the Supreme Court’s New Impeachment Rules
The House’s motion challenges the Supreme Court’s establishment of new impeachment rules and doctrines, including the timing and triggers for complaints. It argued these rules should apply only to future complaints and not retroactively. Applying new guidelines to ongoing cases would be unfair, they said.
Regarding the one-year bar rule, the House clarified it was not applicable when the fourth impeachment complaint was filed. The termination or archiving of earlier complaints happened after the House had already acted on and transmitted the fourth complaint to the Senate in line with constitutional mandates.
The House also disputed the Supreme Court’s claim that the fourth complaint was transmitted without a plenary vote. Official records and the House Journal show that the motion to transmit the complaint was duly voted on by the plenary, led by Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe.
The House denied neglecting any impeachment complaints or violating constitutional time limits. It detailed that the first three complaints were included in the Order of Business within 10 session days, meeting the required period.
Further, the House rejected the Supreme Court’s finding that archived complaints were “unacted upon,” calling it legally and factually mistaken. They stressed reliance on the Supreme Court’s own precedent in Francisco vs House of Representatives, which clarifies the initiation and handling of impeachment complaints.
Clarifying the Impeachment Process Initiation
According to the House, “to initiate” impeachment proceedings means not only filing a verified complaint but also taking initial action, such as referring it to the Justice Committee. This interpretation follows the Supreme Court’s Francisco ruling.
The House maintained it acted properly on the fourth complaint and transmitted the Articles of Impeachment accordingly. The new rules imposed by the Supreme Court, they said, “are plainly beyond the contemplation of the Constitution.”
The Constitution does not specify how complaints must be circulated or how evidence should be gathered before filing. The House stressed these matters are internal and left to its discretion.
Upholding Constitutional Roles and Accountability
In its conclusion, the House clarified it is not seeking favoritism or political advantage but requests that the Supreme Court allow Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties. “The House asks this Honorable Court not to stand with a certain political faction but to uphold the Constitution, which gives life to all government institutions and honors the people as the true sovereigns,” the motion stated.
The House emphasized their actions are not defiance but constitutional stewardship, affirming that each government branch must faithfully adhere to the Constitution. “We act not to provoke institutional conflict, but to prevent erosion of the people’s right to accountability,” it added.
For more news and updates on impeachment proceedings, visit Filipinokami.com.
