[Just Saying] SC’s impeachment ruling provokes more questions than answers

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Is this judicial debilitation of a constitutional prerogative?

With all due respect to the Supreme Court, I  make these observations on its resolution in the case of Duterte vs. House of Representatives (GR No. 278353 January 28, 2026) rendering unconstitutional the filing of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.  

I pose these questions: 

• Was there judicial  overreach — an encroachment — by the Supreme Court into the constitutional domain of a co-equal body, the House of Representatives? 
• While the Supreme Court’s “unanimous” resolution reiterated that the making of the rules of impeachment was within the sole power of the House of Representatives, in the practical application of its ruling, did the Supreme Court in effect crafted a far more intrusive reality debilitating the House’s constitutional mandate? 
• When the Court defines the limits of a discretionary power so narrowly that the discretion itself vanishes, is it a matter of interpreting the Constitution or is it already exercising the power it claims to limit?

My humble observation on the recent Supreme Court resolution also come by way of queries because, for me, it  provokes more questions than answers. They are as follows:  

First: When the Supreme Court redefined the meaning of “session days,” is this not dictating the precise timing and method by which the House must manage its internal order of business, best left to its decision and wisdom as an independent co-equal branch of government? 

Second: When the  1987 Constitution did not define “session days,” is it more consistent with reason to conclude that such omission was intended to make it fluid so that the department most affected by it — the House of Representatives — can provide for itself the rules defining their scope and will therefore have the flexibility to modify them from time to time, from generation to generation, as the need arises?  

Third: By prescribing exactly how and when evidence must be made available to House members, is this in effect directing the operations of a co-equal body? 

Fourth: Is not how evidence is circulated and studied within the House an operational directive limiting  the House’s ability to determine its own internal deliberative proceeding?

Fifth: By speeding up the count through a calendar-day definition, is this not forcing the House into a timeline it did not agree to and thereby controlling the pace and flow of the way the legislature has to act as mandated by the Constitution?

Sixth: Did the Supreme Court, unwittingly, signal that no corner of legislative procedure is safe from judicial audit under the cloak of protecting the boundaries of the Constitution?

ALSO ON RAPPLER

• Read Articles of Impeachment vs Sara Duterte, annotated and explained
• Why impeaching Marcos or VP Sara just got harder
• It’s final, Sara Duterte impeachment is ‘unconstitutional.’ Here’s why.
• Progressive, civil society leaders refile impeachment complaints vs Sara Duterte
• Rappler Recap: What are the chances of new impeachment complaints vs Sara Duterte?

I have re-read the resolution on the motion for reconsideration and the main decision. I  noticed that, in the original decision, the Supreme Court, in my opinion, already acknowledged — at the very least impliedly — that the complaints were filed inside the prescribed period. It did not appear to me that  defining the meaning of “session days” was a  principal issue. But, in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court  suddenly made a redefinition and appeared to have said that the period has already passed. Am I wrong in this appreciation?

I also noticed that the Supreme Court did not clarify its statement in the original decision stating: “Members of collegial bodies CANNOT BE ANSWERABLE for any impeachment based upon the decisions of the collegial bodies as a whole, especially if these decisions pertain to their decision prerogatives.”  Is there an express legal and constitutional basis of immunity simply because decision was made by a collegial body like the Supreme Court?

But the Supreme Court has spoken. However, I do not believe that this decision is immune from critical debate for its far reaching effect on the doctrine of separation of powers and on our democracy.  Magistrates too are fallible men and women. A cloistered judiciary exempted from critical scrutiny belongs to a bygone era. Former US Supreme Court Associate Justice Brewer said it perfectly:

“It is a mistake to suppose that the Supreme Court is either honored or helped by being spoken of as beyond criticism. On the contrary, the life and character of its justices should be the objects of constant watchfulness by all, and its judgments subject to the freest criticism. The time is past in the history of the world when any living man or body of men can be set on a pedestal and decorated with a halo. True, many criticisms may be, like their authors, devoid of good taste, but better all sorts of criticism than no criticism at all. The moving waters are full of life and health; only in the still waters is stagnation and death.” (Government by Injunction, 15 Nat’l Corp. Rep. 848,849) 

And as a law professor and a former dean, I will surely continue to have my law students, in the context of academic discourse, debate  controversial decision. – Rappler.com

Mel Sta. Maria is former dean of the Far Eastern University (FEU) Institute of Law. He teaches law at FEU and the Ateneo School of Law, hosts shows on both radio and Youtube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.