Lawmakers Defend House Speaker’s Leadership
Several lawmakers have firmly stated that no senator has the authority to dictate the leadership of a co-equal branch like the House of Representatives. Senior Deputy Speaker David Suarez described such interference as a “blatant overreach” into the House’s internal affairs.
This response followed Senator Imee Marcos’ statement during a recent Senate session, where she suggested that House members should consider replacing their Speaker. Marcos, a known ally of Vice President Sara Duterte and cousin of Speaker Martin Romualdez, made the remarks amid discussions on the impeachment articles against the Vice President.
Senators Should Respect House Autonomy
In separate statements, Suarez, along with Deputy Speakers Jefferson Khonghun, Paolo Ortega, and Tingog party-list Rep. Jude Acidre, emphasized that the election and potential replacement of the House Speaker is solely the prerogative of House lawmakers. Suarez clarified, “No senator, regardless of stature or history, has the right to dictate who should lead the House. That decision rests solely with the elected members of this chamber, and Speaker Romualdez continues to enjoy our overwhelming confidence.”
Khonghun urged restraint, cautioning, “Pump the brakes on how you talk. There are limits to what you can say in public, especially if it erodes the integrity of other institutions.”
Ortega added, “Strong statements may grab headlines, but they do little to uphold the dignity of our institutions. We must not allow a legitimate constitutional process like impeachment to be dragged into a political circus.”
Context of the Four-Word Keyphrase in Politics
During the Senate session, Marcos was explaining her vote to archive the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte when she made her suggestion to House members. She urged them to replace their own Speaker instead of trying to remove an elected official.
Romualdez was elected Speaker of the 20th Congress on July 28, securing 269 votes from his fellow lawmakers. Marcos reminded everyone to respect the Supreme Court’s decisions, stating, “Let us respect the Supreme Court. We should not play as if we are a Supremer Court, Supremest even, nothing like that exists. To my fellow senators, how can we be great legislators if we do not follow the law?”
She continued, “To my beloved Congress members, I have a suggestion. This is just a suggestion, I hope you do not think ill of it. Instead of seeking to remove someone elected and loved by the people, why don’t you replace the person you yourselves picked? They cannot stop flexing, but what if you just replace your speaker?”
Lawmakers Push Back Against Interference
Khonghun criticized Marcos’ remarks as crossing from opinion into interference. “What was said was not just a personal opinion. It became a public provocation. And when a senator calls for the ouster of the House Speaker, that’s not just political noise anymore, it becomes borderline interference,” he said.
He further defended Romualdez’s leadership, noting, “Speaker Romualdez was chosen by his peers. He has led with clarity and vision, even amid difficult and sensitive political moments. That kind of leadership doesn’t get replaced just because one senator says so.”
Acidre also condemned the statements, highlighting the importance of accountability. “These are dangerous statements that cross a line. Stop this mudslinging. We all know that this is about accountability, not ambition. The Speaker presided over a constitutional process, not a political operation,” he explained.
Archiving the Impeachment Complaint
The Senate voted 19–4 to archive the impeachment articles, effectively putting them on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration filed by the House. This motion seeks to overturn the Court’s earlier ruling that declared the impeachment unconstitutional.
Suarez defended Romualdez’s role, saying he “acted well within the Constitution” when presiding over the session transmitting the impeachment articles. He added, “What we are seeing here is not a call for accountability. It’s a classic deflection from the real issues raised in the impeachment case. The Senate’s decision to archive the complaint does not erase the people’s demand for answers.”
Ortega stressed that accusations of Romualdez forcing the impeachment issue were inaccurate. “The speaker did not act alone. This was a collective institutional decision—one rooted in the Constitution. Calls for his removal overlook that fact and risk personalizing what is, at its core, a constitutional process. Let us set aside divisiveness and stand by the rule of law,” he urged.
Khonghun echoed this, emphasizing the need to focus on the allegations rather than personalities. “It is not the speaker facing the complaints. He is not the one who will do the trial. He has already done his job, as a leader of the House. If we want to talk about accountability, then let’s talk about the allegations in the complaint. Refrain from pointing at personalities who only did their job.”
“We are not trying to fight, but we will not stay silent when there is something wrong. We owe it to the institution and to the people we represent to speak up when the House is being dragged unfairly,” he added.
Background on the Impeachment Process
The impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte was filed on February 5, with 215 members of the 19th Congress signing a fourth complaint. The allegations included misuse of confidential funds, threats against officials, and other possible constitutional violations.
Following constitutional mandates, the articles were immediately transmitted to the Senate, where a trial must begin if at least one-third of House members endorse the complaint.
Two petitions were filed before the Supreme Court in February seeking to halt the impeachment. One petition argued the House did not observe the constitutional 10-session-day rule for acting on impeachment complaints. Another, filed by Duterte’s legal team including her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, claimed the proceedings violated the one-complaint-per-year rule.
On July 25, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the impeachment articles unconstitutional due to the one-year bar rule. This ruling directed the Senate to reconsider the impeachment’s status.
Investigations into Alleged Misuse of Funds
Vice President Duterte faces accusations of misusing confidential funds, with investigations led by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability during the 19th Congress.
During the hearings, questionable acknowledgment receipts surfaced, including names like Mary Grace Piattos—a name resembling a restaurant and a popular potato chip brand. Additionally, differing signatures attributed to Kokoy Villamin raised suspicions, with neither name found in official Philippine Statistics Authority records.
These findings have added layers of complexity to the ongoing political and legal proceedings.
For more news and updates on impeachment developments, visit Filipinokami.com.
