Dennis Gasgonia

House members see 'judicial overreach' in Supreme Court decision on Duterte impeachment

Article (news)

Vivienne Gulla

ABS-CBN News

<p>MANILA — Some House members see judicial overreach — the court going into the functions of other branches of government —  in the Supreme Court decision upholding the unconstitutionality of the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.</p><p>Mamamayang Liberal Party-List Rep. Leila de Lima said the High Court “deviated” from the Constitution, and warned that it “sets a dangerous precedent that weakens the separation of powers” between Congress and the Judiciary. </p><p>The court, in its ruling, said the lower chamber’s complaint against the Vice President, which was filed on February 5, 2025 by 215 — more than the required third of House members — was barred by the one-year ban on “initiating” more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official.</p><p>The first three impeachment complaints against Duterte were filed in December 2024 and were endorsed by House members but not referred.</p><p>Under House Rules, complaints are only considered “initiated” when they are referred to the House Committee on Rules.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/1/29/sc-ruling-on-vp-impeachment-no-effect-on-impeachment-proceedings-vs-marcos-jr-luistro-1928"><strong>SC ruling on VP impeachment &#x27;no effect&#x27; on impeachment proceedings vs Marcos Jr.— Luistro</strong></a></div><p>The same rules, meanwhile, give the House speaker 10 session days from receipt of the verified impeachment complaints from the Office of the House Secretary General, to include it in the lower chamber’s Order of Business.</p><p>In the House of Representatives, a “session day” ends when the session is “adjourned”, even if it exceeds one calendar day. </p><p>But the Supreme Court said that a “session day” refers to a “calendar day in which the House of Representatives holds a session”.</p><p>De Lima considers the decision “crossing from interpretation into legislation”, saying it “redefined” what constitutes the ‘initiation’ of impeachment and “[converted] legislative inaction into a Constitutionally operative act”.</p><p>“Tulad sa naunang desisyon, may paglihis ang Korte Suprema sa letra at diwang nasa Saligang Batas ukol sa pantay at magkahiwalay na kapangyarihan ng Hudikatura at Lehislatura,” the lawmaker said.</p><p>(As in the earlier decision, the Supreme Court veered away from the letter and spirit of the Constitution on the co-equal and separate powers of the judiciary and legislature)</p><p>She said that while the decision may have been well-intentioned, it is constitutionally infirm and “straightjackets a co-equal branch through judicial overreach.&quot; </p><p>She said the SC had &quot;rewritten the operating manual for impeachment initiation... supplied new rules, new timelines, and new consequences that are nowhere found in the text.”</p><p>She also said the decision sets a &quot;very dangerous precedent&quot; on the separation of powers in government.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/1/30/sotto-ready-to-support-charter-change-to-clarify-impeachment-rules-1604"><strong>&#x27;Nabulabog yung Konstitusyon&#x27;: Sotto ready to support cha-cha to clarify impeachment rules </strong></a> </div><p>Akbayan Party-List Rep. Percival Cendaña, who endorsed one of the complaints against Duterte, said that that by “encroaching” on the powers of Congress, the Judiciary could become an “escape route” for impeachable officials who abuse their authority.</p><p>“Kasi the impeachment is a political process, and as such, dapat sana nandoon siya sa realm ng House of Representatives at ng Senado,&quot; he said, adding the decision is concerning.</p><p>(You see, the impeachment is a political process, and, as such, it should remain in the realm of the House of Representatives and the Senate)</p><p>He said he respects the decision but believes it weakens impeachment as a mechanism for accountability.</p><p>“Kakaunti na nga lang ‘yung mekanismo para panagutin ang mga nang-abuso sa kapangyarihan, tapos pahihinain pa natin,” he noted.</p><p>(We already have few mechanisms to hold abuse of power accountable and we&#x27;re weakening it) </p><p>Members of the Makabayan bloc said they view the Supreme Court decision “with grave concern”, which they said seem to change the rules on impeachment, which “constitutes judicial overreach” and seem to “favor powerful impeachable officials over the people&#x27;s demand for accountability”.</p><p>ACT Teachers Party-List Rep. Antonio Tinio said the court&#x27;s interpretation of “session days” should not be applied retroactively.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/1/30/sara-duterte-thankful-for-supreme-court-ruling-vs-house-abuse-of-impeachment-process-1002"><strong>Sara Duterte thankful for Supreme Court ruling vs House ‘abuse’ of impeachment process; lawyers ‘preparing’ for fresh ouster bid</strong></a></div><p>“Ngayon lang sinabi ‘yan ng Supreme Court eh. Doon sa unang decision nga, sabi nila, actually pasok sa 10 session days. So, nagbago pa nga sila ng isip kaugnay doon,&quot; he said, stressing it should only apply to future impeachment complaints.</p><p>(They only said that now. In their first decision, they said it was within the 10 session days. So they changed their minds on that)</p><p>He said the public interest in holding high officials accountable should have been given more weight. </p><div><br/></div><div><strong>WHO ABUSED AUTHORITY?</strong></div><div><br/></div><p>Cendaña also responded to Vice President Duterte’s comment that the House of Representatives had “abused” the impeachment process.</p><p>“Malinaw na malinaw at kita natin ‘yung ebidensya, ang nang-abuso sa kapangyarihan, ang nang-abuso sa kaban ng bayan ay ‘yung Bise Presidente. At ‘yung impeachment, ginagamit para panagutin ang nang-abuso sa kapangyarihan,” he said. </p><p>(It is clear from the evidence that it was the vice president who abused power and public funds.  And impeachment is a way to for accountability of such abuse)</p><p>San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Zamora meanwhile asserted that the House in the 19th Congress followed its rules and the Constitution for the impeachment proceedings against Duterte.</p><p>“When we did our proceedings last year, the impeachment proceedings, we followed the rules that were existing at that time. Meaning, we followed the Constitution, we followed the rules of the House, we followed the Francisco case and the Gutierrez case of the Supreme Court and that is why we had that impeachment complaint filed by one-third — or more than one-third of Congress then,” Zamora explained.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/1/30/de-lima-sc-ruling-infringes-on-congress-power-to-set-impeachment-procedure-1343"><strong>De Lima: SC ruling infringes on Congress power to set impeachment procedure</strong></a></div><p>She added the House&#x27;s definition of its session day “has long been the definition of a session day.&quot;</p><p>Despite disagreements with the Supreme Court decision, Zamora said the House will “try to harmonize” existing rules with it.</p><p>“Kung kinakailangan na baguhin ‘yung House Rules para to comply with the Supreme Court decision, nang sa ganoon, hindi ulit pwedeng takbuhan ng mga nang-abuso sa kapangyarihan ang Supreme Court, then so be it,” Cendaña said.</p><p>Cendaña agreed with the proposal but added the decision will affect the &quot;quality&quot; of the discussion on and of the process of impeachment.</p><div><br/></div><div><strong>FRESH IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS</strong></div><div><br/></div><p>Groups and lawmakers who previously filed impeachment complaints against Duterte plan to continue efforts to hold the vice president accountable over alleged misuse of confidential funds and other supposed impeachable offenses.</p><p>They intend to file fresh impeachment complaints against Duterte once the one-year ban expires on February 6.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/1/29/supreme-court-affirms-sara-duterte-impeachment-unconstitutional-1427"><strong>Supreme Court affirms Sara Duterte impeachment unconstitutional</strong></a></div><p>“Hindi nababago ‘yung pangangailangan na singilin si Vice President Sara Duterte sa paggamit ng confidential funds nang ‘di alinsunod at labag sa mga batas at sa guidelines... At dapat managot dito. So, tuloy pa rin ang plano na i-file muli ‘yung complaints as soon as pwede na,” Tinio said.</p><p>(The need to hold Vice President Sara Duterte accountable for misusing confidential funds has not changed... and she should be held accountable. So the plan to file complaints as soon as it can be done is still on)</p><p>The Makabayan bloc has already endorsed one of two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.</p>

<p>Some congressmen see “judicial overreach” in the Supreme Court decision upholding the unconstitutionality of the articles of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Duterte.</p>

Some congressmen see “judicial overreach” in the Supreme Court decision upholding the unconstitutionality of the articles of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Duterte.