The House of Representatives, asserting its constitutional mandate, filed a 70-page
motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court—through the Office of the Solicitor
General—urging the court to reverse its decision nullifying the impeachment complaint against
Vice President Sara Duterte. The House emphasized that it respected the judiciary, but argued
the ruling was based on erroneous factual premises, including the claim that the complaint was
transmitted without a plenary vote—an assertion contradicted by House journal records. Citing
precedents such as Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003) and Gutierrez v. House
Committee on Justice (2011), the House maintained that the impeachment complaint was validly
initiated and transmitted, and that the archival of the earlier three complaints occurred only after
the fourth was formally endorsed, thus not triggering the one-year bar. It further contended that
the Supreme Court improperly imposed new retroactive due-process requirements—like
furnishing a copy of the complaint to the respondent before transmittal—that are nowhere
mandated by the Constitution or the House rules. Framing the motion as an exercise in
constitutional stewardship rather than defiance, Speaker Martin Romualdez underscored that
what is at stake is the people’s right to hold high officials accountable—not convenience or
procedural technicalities.