Kiko warns of ‘constitutional war of attrition’
The House of Representatives formally lodged a motion for reconsideration on the recent Supreme Court resolution that rejected the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional.
The filing of the motion for reconsideration came as Senator Francis Pangilinan called on the High Court to issue a status quo ante order and hold oral arguments to avoid a “constitutional war of attrition” amid appeals from various legal groups, including the Philippine Constitution Association.
“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty,” said Speaker Martin Romualdez, reaffirming the exclusive constitutional mandate of the Lower House to initiate impeachment proceedings.
“We do not challenge the authority of the Court. We seek only to preserve the rightful role of the House – the voice of the people – in the process of accountability,” Romualdez added.
Philconsa, through former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, asked the Supreme Court to revisit its decision, especially its broader implications for the separation of powers.
“By doing so, all parties including the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court as well as the Legal community can each take pause, take a few steps back and prevent the nation’s fall into a spiraling abyss of a ‘constitutional war of attrition,’” Pangilinan said.
Pangilinan warned that without careful deliberation, the Supreme Court decision could escalate into a constitutional conflict among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
Philconsa’s four-page statement questioned the court’s authority to dictate procedures to Congress in an impeachment process, saying such moves must be examined rigorously.
The group argued that altering the boundaries of constitutional powers, even slightly, poses serious risks to legal and political stability.
Romualdez said the appeal was filed to correct factual misreadings and retroactive procedural burdens imposed by the Supreme Court, which he said would undermine both the Constitution and the people’s right to demand accountability from high officials.
“Let us be clear: The Constitution says: ‘The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.’ That power is not shared. Not subject to pre-approval. And not conditional,” the Speaker said.
He said the House acted within the 10-session-day limit provided in the Constitution when it transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint on February 5, 2025.
“The House transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint – filed and signed by 215 Members – to the Senate. Only after this transmittal did we archive the earlier three complaints. That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four,” he said.
“Even the Court’s own precedent – Francisco v. House – supports this: Only one impeachment can be initiated, and that initiation begins with a one-third endorsement or a referral. That is exactly what the House did,” Romualdez added.
He also addressed the due process issue raised by the High Court when it said the Vice President was not allowed an opportunity to respond.
“Nowhere in the Constitution is that required before transmittal. In fact, in all past impeachments, the trial and the right to be heard take place in the Senate,” he said.
“To invent new rules now, and apply them retroactively, is not just unfair. It is constitutionally suspect.”
“We filed this Motion for Reconsideration not to provoke, but to protect. Not to assert supremacy, but to restore balance… Because if impeachments can be blocked by misunderstood facts, or rules made after the fact, then accountability is not upheld: it is denied,” he added.
PhilConsa earlier raised alarm over the SC’s imposition of seven new rules for the House in handling impeachment cases, saying it violates the constitutional provision granting the legislative chamber exclusive authority to initiate impeachment.
“The Rules made by the Court, which gifted itself the power to determine the sufficiency of evidence and the reasonableness of time given to all members of the House to reach an independent decision, cannot but raise eyebrows,” Philconsa said.
“It tilted the balance of power in its favor. It runs counter to the advice that in interpreting the Constitution, the role of justices is to serve strictly as umpires. They should not act as pitchers or batters in favor of any party,” the group added.
