MANILA, Philippines – Nagpahayag ng pagkadismaya at pag-aalala ang mga miyembro ng House minority bloc sa umano’y pagpasok ng Supreme Court (SC) ng mga bagong doktrina o patakaran sa proseso ng impeachment.
Ito ay matapos masuri nina ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio at Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima noong Biyernes, Enero 30, ang desisyon ng SC na ibasura ang motion for reconsideration (MR) ng House of Representatives laban sa naunang ruling ng korte na nagdeklara na unconstitutional ang impeachment complaint laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte.
“It seems the SC actually backed off from the due process requirements (respondent’s right to notice and reply, etc) it imposed on the ‘fast-track’ mode of impeachment,” ayon kay Tinio.
Tinukoy niya ang mga pangyayari noong Pebrero 5, 2025, nang pumirma at magpatibay sa plenaryo ang humigit-kumulang 215 mambabatas ng impeachment complaint, kabilang ang articles of impeachment, laban kay Vice President Duterte. Noong Hulyo 2025, pinawalang-bisa ng SC ang reklamo matapos ang petisyon ng kampo ng Bise Presidente, at ito ay pinagtibay ng SC En Banc noong Enero 29.
“Bottom line: the SC scuttled the impeachment trial of the VP on a technicality,” sabi ni Tinio.
“In walking back the grand claim that the “fast track” impeachment mode violated the due process rights of the Vice-President, the SC ruling on the MR now rests solely on a new-fangled doctrine that lack of timely action by the Secretary General or the Speaker on a complaint initiates an impeachment proceeding and triggers the one-year bar,” dagdag niya.
Ayon kay Tinio, ang one-year bar ay para protektahan ang mga opisyal laban sa walang basehang reklamo at maiwasang maabala ang Kongreso ng paulit-ulit na impeachment proceedings, ngunit hindi umano ito isyu sa impeachment laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte ng 19th Congress.
Nagpahayag din ng kaparehong pananaw si De Lima, na nagsabing lumihis ang desisyon ng SC En Banc sa mismong diwa ng Konstitusyon.
“While it basically rests on technicalities, the resolution denying the [MR] appears to be a derogation of the House’s constitutional powers and prerogatives…As such, this second decision is not merely a denial of the MR or an affirmation of the original decision. It reads like an altogether new decision but with the same result,” ani De Lima.
Dagdag pa niya, “As the latest SC ruling closes several doctrinal loopholes in its original decision, the court also took the opportunity presented by the [MR] to restructure, refurbish, and refine novel doctrinal pronouncements via an addendum to the original ponencia.”
Ayon kay De Lima, sa muling pagbibigay-kahulugan ng “initiation” ng impeachment at sa pagtrato sa legislative inaction bilang isang mahalagang konstitusyonal na hakbang, ang SC ay “has crossed from interpretation into legislation.”
“It is judicial legislation—well-intentioned perhaps, but constitutionally infirm—because it straightjackets a co-equal branch through judicial overreach. The [SC] has not merely reviewed the House’s compliance with clear constitutional commands—it has rewritten the operating manual for impeachment initiation,” sabi niya.
“It has supplied new rules, new timelines, and new consequences that are nowhere found in the text. The effect is to discipline the procedure that the Constitution left for Congress to decide,” dagdag pa ni De Lima.
Babala pa niya, nagtatakda umano ito ng “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.” RNT/MND
