[Just Saying] SC’s impeachment ruling provokes extra questions than solutions

Is that this judicial debilitation of a constitutional prerogative?

With all due respect to the Supreme Courtroom, I  make these observations on its decision within the case of Duterte vs. Home of Representatives (GR No. 278353 January 28, 2026) rendering unconstitutional the submitting of the impeachment criticism towards Vice President Sara Duterte.  

I pose these questions: 

• Was there judicial  overreach — an encroachment — by the Supreme Courtroom into the constitutional area of a co-equal physique, the Home of Representatives? 
• Whereas the Supreme Courtroom’s “unanimous” decision reiterated that the making of the foundations of impeachment was inside the sole energy of the Home of Representatives, within the sensible software of its ruling, did the Supreme Courtroom in impact crafted a much more intrusive actuality debilitating the Home’s constitutional mandate? 
• When the Courtroom defines the bounds of a discretionary energy so narrowly that the discretion itself vanishes, is it a matter of decoding the Structure or is it already exercising the ability it claims to restrict?

My humble statement on the latest Supreme Courtroom decision additionally come by the use of queries as a result of, for me, it  provokes extra questions than solutions. They’re as follows:  

First: When the Supreme Courtroom redefined the which means of “session days,” is that this not dictating the exact timing and technique by which the Home should handle its inside order of enterprise, greatest left to its choice and knowledge as an unbiased co-equal department of presidency? 

Second: When the  1987 Structure didn’t outline “session days,” is it extra per motive to conclude that such omission was meant to make it fluid in order that the division most affected by it — the Home of Representatives — can present for itself the foundations defining their scope and can due to this fact have the flexibleness to switch them now and again, from era to era, as the necessity arises?  

Third: By prescribing precisely how and when proof have to be made out there to Home members, is that this in impact directing the operations of a co-equal physique? 

Fourth: Is not how proof is circulated and studied inside the Home an operational directive limiting  the Home’s potential to find out its personal inside deliberative continuing?

Fifth: By dashing up the depend via a calendar-day definition, is that this not forcing the Home right into a timeline it didn’t comply with and thereby controlling the tempo and circulate of the way in which the legislature has to behave as mandated by the Structure?

Sixth: Did the Supreme Courtroom, unwittingly, sign that no nook of legislative process is protected from judicial audit below the cloak of defending the boundaries of the Structure?

ALSO ON RAPPLER

I’ve re-read the decision on the movement for reconsideration and the primary choice. I  observed that, within the authentic choice, the Supreme Courtroom, in my view, already acknowledged — on the very least impliedly — that the complaints had been filed contained in the prescribed interval. It didn’t seem to me that  defining the which means of “session days” was a  principal challenge. However, within the decision of the movement for reconsideration, the Supreme Courtroom  immediately made a redefinition and appeared to have mentioned that the interval has already handed. Am I unsuitable on this appreciation?

I additionally observed that the Supreme Courtroom didn’t make clear its assertion within the authentic choice stating: “Members of collegial our bodies CANNOT BE ANSWERABLE for any impeachment primarily based upon the choices of the collegial our bodies as a complete, particularly if these choices pertain to their choice prerogatives.”  Is there an categorical authorized and constitutional foundation of immunity just because choice was made by a collegial physique just like the Supreme Courtroom?

However the Supreme Courtroom has spoken. Nevertheless, I don’t imagine that this choice is immune from crucial debate for its far reaching impact on the doctrine of separation of powers and on our democracy.  Magistrates too are fallible women and men. A cloistered judiciary exempted from crucial scrutiny belongs to a bygone period. Former US Supreme Courtroom Affiliate Justice Brewer mentioned it completely:

“It’s a mistake to suppose that the Supreme Courtroom is both honored or helped by being spoken of as past criticism. Quite the opposite, the life and character of its justices must be the objects of fixed watchfulness by all, and its judgments topic to the freest criticism. The time is previous within the historical past of the world when any dwelling man or physique of males might be set on a pedestal and embellished with a halo. True, many criticisms could also be, like their authors, devoid of fine style, however higher all types of criticism than no criticism in any respect. The shifting waters are energetic and well being; solely within the nonetheless waters is stagnation and dying.” (Authorities by Injunction, 15 Nat’l Corp. Rep. 848,849) 

And as a regulation professor and a former dean, I’ll absolutely proceed to have my regulation college students, within the context of educational discourse, debate  controversial choice. – Rappler.com

Mel Sta. Maria is former dean of the Far Japanese College (FEU) Institute of Legislation. He teaches regulation at FEU and the Ateneo Faculty of Legislation, hosts reveals on each radio and Youtube, and has authored a number of books on regulation, politics, and present occasions.