2 months ago
26
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
January 30, 2026 | 2:58pm
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court's definitive ruling that Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment is unconstitutional has drawn criticism from lawmakers, legal experts and constitutional scholars.
In a statement on Friday, January 30, Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-List) said the high court's resolution "basically rests on technicalities" and diminishes the House of Representatives' constitutional powers and prerogatives over impeachment, especially as a co-equal body.
"As in its previous decision, the Supreme Court deviates from the letter and spirit of the Constitution regarding the separate and equal powers of the Judiciary and the Legislature," she said in Filipino.
The high court denied the House's motion for reconsideration on Thursday, January 29, reaffirming its July 2025 decision and providing additional explanations on the technicalities surrounding the impeachment process.
However, some of the clarifications offered new interpretations and more detailed instructions on impeachment rules that were not clearly addressed or mentioned in the original ruling.
This led De Lima to think that the latest ruling read like an entirely "new decision," even though it reached the same conclusion that Duterte's impeachment was unconstitutional.
While acknowledging that the Supreme Court ruling "closes several doctrinal loopholes," the minority lawmaker said the Court used the motion for reconsideration as an opportunity to "restructure, refurbish, and refine" the statements made in its original ruling.
And that includes "redefining" what it means to initiate an impeachment, which De Lima argued exceeds the Supreme Court’s judicial power over the House.
"By redefining what constitutes the ‘initiation’ of impeachment and by converting legislative inaction into a constitutionally operative act, the Court has crossed from interpretation into legislation," she said.
According to the House rules and existing jurisprudence, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated when a properly verified and endorsed complaint is filed and referred to the House justice committee. It is not only the filing, but also the referral.
However, the Supreme Court's latest ruling introduces two more specific rules for determining when the one-year bar starts.
This covers complaints not included in the Order of Business or not referred to the justice committee within the constitutionally required period. Even properly filed, endorsed and referred complaints would fail if the House takes no action before the current Congress adjourns sine die or indefinitely.
Beyond setting the conditions for when an impeachment is considered initiated, the Supreme Court also offered a specific definition of "session days." Unlike the usual interpretation, the high court said that for impeachment cases, a session day should be counted as a calendar day when the House is in session.
This part of the resolution was a complete 180-degree turn from the original ruling that said the House complied with the 10-day rule.
De Lima said that while the Supreme Court's "judicial-legislation" may be "well-intentioned," it is "constitutionally infirm," which means the decision may be based on a flawed legal framework.
She explained that the high court effectively "straightjackets" or disregards the legislative branch as its co-equal through its decision, describing it as a "judicial overreach."
"The Supreme Court has not merely reviewed the House’s compliance with clear constitutional commands — it has rewritten the operating manual for impeachment initiation. It has supplied new rules, new timelines, and new consequences that are nowhere found in the text," De Lima said.
Most of all, however, the minority lawmaker stressed that the resolution does not, in any way, absolve Duterte for the "offenses she is accused of committing," much like the justices said in the original ruling.
The one-year bar for Duterte’s impeachment lapses on February 6. With plans to refile a complaint underway, the House expects to conduct impeachment hearings for both President Bongbong Marcos and Duterte — all the while considering changes in its impeachment rules.
