2 months ago
31
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
MANILA, Philippines — There are no discussions yet within the administration on Charter change proposals, Malacañang said yesterday, after Senate President Vicente Sotto III expressed support for efforts to amend the Constitution following a Supreme Court ruling upholding an earlier decision declaring the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said that while Marcos is focused on economic matters, he is ready to look into the Charter change proposals.
“That is not yet being discussed for now. The President is focused on growing the economy of the country and it was not discussed in the latest meeting of the President with the economic team last Friday, Jan. 30, 2026,” Castro said in a text message.
“But, if they (Cha-cha proponents) have already taken steps toward this end, then the President will study it,” she said in Filipino.
Late last week, the Supreme Court affirmed its July decision declaring last year’s Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional.
In its earlier ruling, the high court said the Articles of Impeachment violated the rule that prohibits impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a year.
Three impeachment complaints were filed against the Vice President last year before the House of Representatives endorsed a fourth one, which was then transmitted to the Senate.
The House of Representatives tried to persuade the SC to reverse its decision through a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the fourth complaint alone was elevated for trial and no other complaint remained pending at the time of transmittal.
The House added that on Feb. 5, 2025, it acted within the 10-session-day limit provided in the Constitution and transmitted to the Senate the fourth impeachment complaint that was duly verified and endorsed by more than one-third of all its members.
But the high court maintained that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate had already violated the one-year bar.
According to the SC ruling, the first three impeachment complaints were not placed in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.
It added that the term session days as used in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2) or for the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint does not mean legislative session days.
“A session day for purposes of Article XI in the Constitution was given its plain and ordinary sense, which the Court interprets to mean a calendar day in which the House of Representatives holds a session,” the high court said.
Reacting to the decision, Sotto said the Constitution had just been amended unconstitutionally through what he described as “Supreme Court overreach.”
“It will take decades of retirements to correct this misinterpretation. When the law is clear, there is nothing to interpret, as any first year law student knows,” the Senate President said in a statement.
Sotto also labeled the ruling as “a clear judicial legislation” and “a clear encroachment on the power of the legislative branch.”
At a recent press briefing, Sotto said he was willing to back efforts to amend the Constitution to address the issues sparked by the ruling.
Open to Cha-cha
Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua, chairman of the House committee on good government and public accountability, said there is now basis for considering Charter change, as raised by Sotto.
“In this new decision of the SC, they added word ‘deemed initiated.’ In my view, it may be time to review the Constitution,” Chua said at the Saturday Media Forum.
“In fact, the Senate President said he agreed because of the new changes happening. It seems he is now open to change the Constitution,” Chua added.
He said the Constitution has repeatedly surfaced issues that lawmakers have long flagged, including questions on the interpretation of how Congress should perform its functions.
“Our Constitution is now more than 30 years, it is almost 40 years already. Since 1987, many has happened already,” Chua said.
He pointed to recurring disputes over provisions that, in his view, may warrant review beyond the current controversy.
“One of it is the voting of the House jointly or separate. That has been an issue. Second, we also see the anti-dynasty as an issue,” Chua said. “So not in particular in the impeachment only, but also in other provisions.”
Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, chairman of the committee on public accounts, also voiced support for Charter change, but only for specific provisions tied to concerns about judicial intrusion.
“I will support him only in so far as the overreach of the judiciary into the legislature and to other branches of government,” Ridon said.
But he stressed there are other constitutional tools for ensuring judicial accountability aside from constitutional amendments. Ridon pointed to impeachment as one mechanism that applies even to members of the High Court.
He also said Congress retains the power to check certain judiciary expenditures, particularly the use of the Judiciary Development Fund.
“I think that is something that Congress could undertake as part of the checks and balances of Congress to the judiciary,” he added.
‘Overreach’
For House Deputy Minority leader and ML party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, the SC decision was a “judicial overreach” that can justify a review of the Charter, as raised by the Senate President.
“I am open to the proposal for the Senate and Congress to discuss what will Congress’ response be to the decision of the Supreme Court in the impeachment case against VP Sara. I believe that there was judicial overreach here, where the Court weakened and intervened in the powers of the co-equal branch of government,” De Lima said in a statement.
She said the SC decision weakens the separation of powers provided for under the Constitution and sets a “dangerous precedent.”
“And as I have said, this judicial legislation sets a very dangerous precedent that weakens separation of powers by transforming impeachment from a political safeguard into a judicially managed process, contrary to the design and spirit of the Constitution. Addressing this crucial issue is of transcendental importance,” she said.
She also made it clear there are parameters in her support for Charter change. “For example, I am open to clarifying the provisions on impeachment, to make the provision of the ban on political dynasties and amending some economic provisions as self-executing,” De Lima said.
“But I will oppose it if the agenda is to give way for term extension of those who are seated, removal of term limit, removal of ban on political dynasty and thinning of provisions on human rights and social justice,” she added.
Moving goalpost
The Makabayan bloc, for its part, said the SC’s recent ruling favoring Duterte reflected an ambiguity in the court’s interpretation of laws on impeachment.
“The voiding of the Duterte impeachment appears to rest on moving goalposts regarding when an impeachment complaint is deemed initiated, in order to justify the application of the constitutional one-year bar,” ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, Gabriela Women’s Party Rep. Sarah Jane Elago and Kabataan Rep. Renee Louise Co said in a joint statement.
They said the SC initially ruled that the one-year bar was triggered when the first three complaints were archived and the fourth complaint was transmitted to the Senate.
“This constitutes judicial overreach and sets a bad precedent where judicial intervention occurs every time a com plaint is filed against an impeachable official,” they pointed out. — Jose Rodel Clapano
