Speaker to Senate: Raps seek ‘answers’ from Sara
In rushing to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte before the Supreme Court makes a final ruling on its constitutionality, the Senate not only acted unfairly but also endangered democratic checks and balances, Speaker Martin Romualdez said on Thursday.
Romualdez and other House members criticized the senators for voting to archive the complaint against Duterte—a compromise to an outright dismissal of the case—without waiting for the high court to rule on motions asking it to reconsider its decision to nullify the articles of impeachment against her.
In its July 25 ruling, the court said Duterte’s impeachment violated the Constitution’s provision prohibiting the initiation of more than one impeachment complaint against the same official within a year and for violating her right to due process.
The House exercised its power to impeach the Vice President not out of spite, but to address unanswered questions, Romualdez said in a statement a day after the Senate’s 19-4-1 vote.
“Yesterday, the Senate—not sitting as an impeachment court—moved swiftly to archive the complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, despite the case still pending before the Supreme Court,” Romualdez said.
‘Why the rush?’
“Why the rush?” said Romualdez, a lawyer and president of the Philippine Constitution Association, disputing the high court’s ruling.
“The Constitution is clear: only the House has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment,” he said. “That power is final within its sphere. We exercised that power lawfully, transparently, and in good faith—not out of spite, but out of duty. Not to attack, but to ask for answers—answers the Vice President never gave.”
Duterte refused to answer lawmakers’ questions during a House inquiry last year concerning her alleged misuse of up to P612.5 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education which she headed from 2022 to 2024.
The articles of impeachment include culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption. In addition, she allegedly arranged for the assassination of President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and the Speaker.
“This was never about political maneuvering. It was about accountability—pananagutan—anchored on verified facts and sworn documents,” Romualdez said.
Personal attacks
But as a consequence of the House action, he said its members, including himself, became targets of personal attacks aimed at reducing their “solemn constitutional duty into mere power play.”
“That’s not just unfair—it is dangerous. It undermines public trust in the very tools of democratic checks and balances,” he added.
He said that archiving the articles of impeachment was the same as burying it.
“Yet the ruling of the Supreme Court is not final,” he said, pointing to the motion for reconsideration filed by the House last Monday. “The case is active.”
During their session on Wednesday night, the senators explained their votes.
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano said the impeachment should not be used just to exact revenge on Duterte and to oust her.
“If we do not want Vice President Sara to be elected president, beat her in 2028,” Cayetano said.
Chiz’s ‘simple question’
Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero asked whether who wanted to disregard the Supreme Court decision to push for impeachment were really seeking accountability.
“I ask this simple question […] are you truly for accountability or simply anti-Duterte? Do you truly respect and want to preserve the Constitution, or you simply hate the Vice President? Are you serving the nation’s interest or protecting and pursuing your own personal ambitions or agenda?” he said.
Senator Imee Marcos—a known Duterte ally who is Romualdez’s cousin—suggested that House members replace the Speaker instead of removing the Vice President.
Romualdez said that they were not rising against the Senate, but were speaking for the people seeking the truth.
“Let’s be clear: The filing of the complaint was not rushed. What was rushed—remarkably—was its burial,” he said.
“We rise for the Republic. Tuloy ang laban. For the Constitution. For the rule of law. And for the enduring truth that no public office is ever beyond the reach of accountability,” he added.
‘To these people…’
Escudero on Thursday asked House members not to use the Senate to attack their political adversaries.
“To the House of Representatives I say, do not allow yourselves to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of a few who did things haphazardly, gravely abused their discretion, and violated due process, rights under the Constitution as found by the high court itself,” he said.
“To these people, I say this: the Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme,” Escudero said, adding that he would “never bow to a mob and never cower to the shrillest of voices.”
Manila Rep. Joel Chua, one of the 11 designated House prosecutors in the impeachment trial, said that archiving was better than dismissing the impeachment complaint.
Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima said that archiving the case would at least give the high court the opportunity to review the House appeal and not dismiss it on point of mootness.
“This gives us an opening to continue fighting tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after, this time at the SC,” she added.
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, however, said Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III’s motion to table the Senate action would have been preferable.
“This would have given less trouble for the Senate to retrieve the impeachment complaint,” because that would again be subject to a Senate vote, Adiong said.
Another nail on coffin
Akbayan Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno resented the Senate action.
“No matter what you call it: to dismiss, to archive, or in the words of one senator, kill the articles of impeachment, the Senate hammered another nail on the coffin of accountability,” he said.
Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante, House committee on human rights chair, said the Senate vote was a “dangerous precedent” that weakened the constitutional process of accountability.
“The Senate’s action sends the wrong message: that accountability may be set aside,” Abante said.
He warned that public officials may now be emboldened to ignore questions of propriety or legality especially if they enjoy political popularity or are seen as future contenders for higher office.
Tingog Rep. Jude Acidre agreed. “The message we sent was wrong—that when you are high in government, you cannot be questioned. What credibility do we have to speak against corruption, when we have failed to hold even the second highest official in the land to account?” he said.
‘True colors’ showing
For ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, the senators who voted for archiving “showed their true colors and stances.”
“But what this really tells us is that they were belittling, setting aside the legitimate issues surrounding her confidential funds,” he said.
Sen. Bam Aquino, one of the four who voted against the majority, said it would not be impossible for the Supreme Court to reverse its decision.
“I admit that. It is very improbable for the Supreme Court to change its decision with 15 votes, but it’s not impossible. Improbable and impossible are two different things,” he said on Wednesday at the plenary.
Aquino said that while the Senate still respected the high court, he underscored the importance of the chamber’s position as the sole authority to try and decide impeachment cases.
“For me, it is unacceptable to not fight just because we believe that we will lose. Sometimes, it is important to take our stand even if we know that things will not go in our favor,” he said.
