MANILA — Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez on Monday vowed to uphold the constitutional authority of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, following a Supreme Court ruling that nullified the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

“The House will not bow in silence,” Romualdez said. “We speak now not because it is easy, but because it is necessary.”

Romualdez said the House has filed a Motion for Reconsideration urging the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in G.R. No. 278353, which struck down the Articles of Impeachment on grounds of constitutional violations, including the one-year bar rule, due process, and right to speedy disposition of cases.

“This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty,” Romualdez declared. “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.”

He maintained that the ruling was based on factual misreadings and retroactive procedural standards that, if left uncorrected, could erode public accountability and weaken the balance of power.

“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,” he said.

Romualdez explained that the House fulfilled its constitutional mandate by transmitting the fourth impeachment complaint—signed by 215 members—on February 5, 2025, within the 10-session-day limit. He said the earlier three complaints were only archived after the fourth was filed.

“That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four,” he said, citing the Court’s own precedent in Francisco v. House, which defines initiation as beginning with either a one-third endorsement or a committee referral.

Addressing the due process concerns cited by the Supreme Court, Romualdez said there is no constitutional requirement to furnish the impeached official with a copy of the complaint or give them a chance to respond prior to transmittal.

“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.”

Romualdez warned that allowing one branch to dictate the terms of its own accountability could compromise the system of checks and balances.

“The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government… But its Members – like the President and the Vice President – are also impeachable officers,” he said. “When the Court lays down rules for how it, or others like it, may be impeached, it puts itself in the dangerous position of writing conditions that may shield itself from future accountability.”

He emphasized that the Motion for Reconsideration was not meant to provoke conflict between branches, but to restore institutional balance and preserve constitutional integrity.

“We filed this Motion for Reconsideration not to provoke, but to protect. Not to assert supremacy, but to restore balance,” he said. “Because if impeachments can be blocked by misunderstood facts, or rules made after the fact, then accountability is not upheld: it is denied.”

“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,” Romualdez added.