Lawmakers back rule revisions to thwart 'judicial overreach'

Lawmakers on Saturday expressed support for revising existing rules—and possibly amending the Constitution—to prevent what they described as judicial overreach, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that declared unconstitutional the articles of impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In Darlene Cay's 24 Oras Weekend report, Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said he plans to discuss with House leaders the possible next steps after the high court’s 2025 decision, which some legislators believe curtailed the impeachment powers of Congress.

“Palitan na natin ang Konstitusyon kung ganyan. Kung constituent assembly ang solusyon, bakit maghihintay pa tayo ng ilang dekada?

(If this is the case, then let’s just change the Constitution. If a constituent assembly is the solution, why should we wait for decades? Do the Supreme Court justices still have to retire before this can be fixed?” Sotto said.

He said the country cannot afford to wait for the retirement of the current Supreme Court justices—most of whom were appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte, the Vice President’s father.

Sotto said he sees the need to address what he described as "undue interference" by the judiciary in matters that are constitutionally vested in the legislature, particularly the power to initiate impeachment proceedings.

At a media forum, Manila 3rd Dist. Rep. Joel Chua, who chairs the House committee on good government and public accountability, backed Sotto's proposal, adding that the 1987 Constitution also needs to be revisited after nearly four decades of implementation.

“Mahigit 30 taon na po, halos 40 taon na ang ating Konstitusyon. Marami na pong nangyari at marami na rin tayong nakita na kakulangan o hindi pagkakatugma-tugma," he said.

(Our Constitution is more than 30 years old, nearly 40 years already. A lot has happened, and we have seen many shortcomings or inconsistencies.)

"Sa aking pananaw, baka napapanahon na ring repasuhin ito—hindi lang sa usapin ng impeachment kundi pati sa iba pang probisyon,” Chua added.

(In my view, it may be timely to review it—not only on the issue of impeachment but also other provisions.)

Meanwhile, House Committee on Public Accounts Chairperson Terry Ridon criticized the Supreme Court’s emphasis on due process and speedy resolution of impeachment cases, saying the judiciary should also assess its own compliance with procedural timelines.

“I think they should also look at themselves—whether they are able to comply with the 24-month period for resolving cases,” Ridon said.

Ridon pointed out that Supreme Court rules require cases to be resolved within 24 months from the submission of the last pleading or memorandum, questioning whether the court consistently meets this standard.

Despite their criticism, lawmakers said they would comply with and respect the Supreme Court’s ruling, even as they disagreed with its implications.

"Bagama’t kami ay tatalima at gumagalang sa kautusan ng Korte Suprema, hindi ibig sabihin nito ay sumasang-ayon kami,” Chua said.

(While we will comply with and respect the ruling of the Supreme Court, this does not mean that we agree with it.)

Some legislators said the decision has fueled frustration in the House, particularly as it prepares for the possible filing of a new impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte following the expiration of the one-year bar rule on February 6.

They reiterated that under the 1987 Constitution, the exclusive power to initiate impeachment rests with the House of Representatives, not the Supreme Court.—MCG, GMA Integrated News