The House of Representatives can still file a motion for reconsideration to appeal the Supreme Court decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional, retired chief justice Artemio Panganiban said.
“Note that the decision is not final yet. It is still subject to a motion for reconsideration (or for clarification) by the HOR, if it so wants to file one,” Panganiban said in a statement.
Still, he said that regardless of whether people are for or against the decision, it should be respected.
“We must observe the rule of law,” he said.
House spokesperson lawyer Princess Abante said the chamber has not yet officially received a copy of the decision but assured the public it will be reviewed with utmost respect once furnished.
“We respect the Supreme Court. But our constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here,” Abante said.
“The decision of the Supreme Court will be respected—but it will never cause us to stop fulfilling our duty,” she added.
Abante emphasized the power to initiate impeachment proceedings belongs solely to the House, as mandated by the Constitution.
She said judicial interference at this stage could erode the constitutional principle of checks and balances and curtail the public’s right to demand accountability from high-ranking officials.
“Impeachment is a political act rooted in the people’s will—no legal technicality should silence it…This is not a battle against one public official but a fight for the rights of the people to hold their leaders accountable,” she said.
Abante clarified the House’s response is not an act of defiance but a firm and lawful assertion of its constitutional mandate.
“The House will exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role. This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity,” she said.
“We owe it to the people to be relentless in our duty—because accountability should never be optional, no matter how high the office,” Abante added.
Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting earlier clarified the ruling does not bar the refiling of a new impeachment complaint after one year, or on February 5, 2026.
The first three impeachment complaints against Duterte were all filed in December 2024. The fourth complaint, filed in February 2025, was adopted by the House and transmitted to the Senate.
For lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, even if the first three complaints triggered the one-year bar rule, the filing of the 4th impeachment complaint and transmittal on the same day is not covered by the said rule.
He said even if the one-year bar rule is triggered, it should only apply to the first three impeachment complaints and not to the 4th one.
Independent policy analyst and constitutionalist Michael Yusingco, however, warned against defying the Supreme Court decision.
“SC decisions form part of the laws of the land such that they must be obeyed by everyone. To disobey an SC decision is to disobey a law,” Yusingco said.
In a social media post, retired Supreme Court associate justice Adolfo Azcuna Jr. said he believes the ruling was unfair for the respondents and proponents of the impeachment given that it came out with a new definition of what constitutes being “initiated.”
“I respectfully submit that it would be unfair to apply this new definition to the complaint involved in the present case, as it was precisely adopted in reliance on the Supreme Court’s then prevailing definition,” he said.
According to Dindo Manhit, founder and CEO of policy think-tank Stratbase, the decision “presents a complex but revealing inflection point in Philippine political and institutional dynamics.”
“While the ruling halts the current process, it does not close the conversation on accountability—nor should it. The Court’s decision is grounded on procedural violations, notably the breach of the one-year rule and a lack of due process in the House’s handling of the complaint,” he said.
“The allegations—including the misuse of confidential funds and involvement in acts deemed as high crimes—remain legally and politically unresolved. This distinction is not lost on the public,” he added.
The Vice President’s defense panel, on the other hand, is on “wait and see” mode after the High Court decision, spokesperson Michael Poa told ABS-CBN News. “We will also oppose it (motion for reconsideration) if need be or at least give our comments on it,” Poa added.
