MANILA — The House of Representatives filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court, challenging its ruling that nullified the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a statement, the chamber said the move was made “with utmost respect for the Constitution,” framing it not as defiance but as “an exercise in constitutional stewardship.”

“This is not an act of defiance or disrespect. It is an exercise in constitutional stewardship—an affirmation that every branch must act with fidelity to the Charter that gives us all our power,” the statement read.

“What is at stake goes far beyond the 20th Congress. What is at stake is whether the people retain their power to hold the most powerful officials in government accountable—through the very branch that speaks in their name.”

The House stressed that the Constitution grants it the “exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment” and argued that this power was undermined by the high court’s decision.

On February 5, the chamber transmitted to the Senate a verified impeachment complaint against the Vice President, endorsed by more than one-third of its members. On the same day, it archived three earlier complaints filed in December 2024.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling misunderstood—and effectively reversed—this clear chronology,” the House said. “Based on that factual error, it struck down a process we executed with utmost fidelity to the Constitution.”

The statement also disputed the Court’s ruling that the House violated the constitutional one-year bar on initiating multiple impeachment proceedings.

“The House initiated only one proceeding: the February 5 complaint that met the one-third threshold,” it said, citing past Supreme Court jurisprudence in the Francisco and Gutierrez cases.

The House further criticized the high court for introducing “new due process requirements” not found in the Constitution, including furnishing the respondent a copy of the complaint and allowing them to respond before transmittal to the Senate.

“If these rules had existed earlier, we would have followed them. But to invent them after the fact, and strike down a valid impeachment for not satisfying them, is not only unfair—it is constitutionally suspect,” it said.

The chamber also warned against allowing the judiciary to define the parameters of its own impeachment.

“When the Court begins to create rules on how it—and other high officials—may be impeached, it risks writing the terms of its own immunity,” the statement read.

While asserting respect for the Court’s power of judicial review, the House said it was denied the chance to clarify factual issues during oral arguments, a step the Supreme Court “granted in far less significant cases.”

“This Motion for Reconsideration is not a test of institutional power. It is a plea for constitutional clarity,” it said.

“We do not seek control over other branches. We seek only the space to perform our constitutional duty—freely, faithfully, and fully.”

The House concluded the statement by affirming its resolve to uphold the public’s right to hold officials accountable.

“To dissent is not to defy. To demand accountability is not to destabilize. To insist on constitutional integrity is not to weaken democracy—it is to strengthen it,” the statement said.