Judicial overreach?

Recently, the Supreme Court asked the House of Representatives to explain the details of the impeachment process against Vice President Sara Duterte. The Court wants to know whether the lawmakers read and understood what they signed, and if the House followed the rules. On the surface, it appears to be a simple request for clarification. But for many, including retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and ML party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, it signals something far more troubling: judicial overreach.

It now appears that the Supreme Court is aligning itself with the Senate regarding the House’s role in the impeachment. By asking whether lawmakers read what they signed, the High Tribunal is not-so-subtly implying that our elected representatives are what, illiterate? Possessed? Zombies? Victims of mass hypnosis? Was there a mysterious, miraculous force that guided their hands to sign something that they didn’t understand?

By questioning whether each representative read and understood the complaint before signing, the Court not only insults the intelligence of lawmakers but casts doubt on the very integrity of Congress and, by extension, the foundations of legal and democratic practice. Justice Carpio was spot on: what’s the point? The lawmakers signed it. They verified it. They affirmed that the allegations were true to their knowledge or based on authentic documents. If that’s not good enough, what’s next? A mental exam? A legal report? A polygraph test? That’s not a presumption of regularity, that’s assumption of idiocy.

You’d think the Supreme Court, of all institutions, would know this: impeachment is a political act. The judiciary has no business prying into the motives, wisdom or mental states of legislators unless there is a direct constitutional violation. And there isn’t. So what’s this really about? By demanding explanations from lawmakers, the Supreme Court doesn’t just question their judgment, it practically calls them idiots.

And here’s the kicker: to many, the House may be a circus, but at least it’s a circus we elected. I have plenty of critiques of Congress, but let’s be honest, assuming they’re too stupid to read what they sign? Come on. The House is many things, but a group of clueless drones? That’s a stretch even for the harshest critic.

What is most troubling is a strange part of the Court’s order implying that Vice President Duterte was actually entitled to a hearing first, before one-third of the House endorsed the complaint. That requirement does not exist in the Constitution. None. Zip. It was simply pulled from air. In fact, if we are talking about what could be unconstitutional here, it is this derailment of the impeachment process. The Court is imposing procedural requirements where there are no procedural requirements stipulated in the Constitution at all. That is not interpretation at all; that is interference.

Let us remember: while impeachment is indeed a legal process, it is also fundamentally political and a process given by the Constitution to the political branches of the legislature. The House initiates it, the Senate tries it. That is the balance. That is the deal. When one branch starts to stray into the lane of the other branch, the balance starts to fray, and so does the promise of accountability. Impeachment is hardly a kumbaya moment where all branches hold hands around a campfire. When the Court intervenes and starts micromanaging how the House does its job, there is no balance, that is a breach.

Our democracy rests on four principles: a free and independent legislature, a fair judiciary, a working executive and a public that cares. All four have to respect each other’s role. The judiciary has to be prudent and restrained. Congress has to have integrity and transparency. The executive has to provide services despite the political drama. And the public has to be vigilant.

Our concern is simple but serious: truth and accountability risk being lost in a maze of legal technicalities. Rep. De Lima is right to warn that the Court’s intervention may delay, or even derail, the Senate trial. With the trial expected to begin when Congress resumes on July 28, time is running out. A conviction requires the vote of 16 senators. If the Court’s investigation stalls the impeachment process, it could mean justice delayed, and yes, possibly denied. Vice President Sara wins. She walks away without ever being held to account.

So, enough with the legal gymnastics and obstructions. Let us defend the Constitution. Congress has done its job. Let the process take its course, and let the Senate finally try the impeached Vice President.

And the people must continue to speak out. In this moment of reckoning, we must ask: are we protecting power, or are we protecting the people?

The answer will not come from the Supreme Court or the legislature alone. It is now up to us, the citizens, to remind the Senate and the legal luminaries in the High Tribunal of their higher calling: the pursuit of truth, and the promise of accountability.

*      *      *

This column offers insightful political commentary, with a hint of satire and sarcasm, based on real and often unseen narratives that lead to the many pressing issues of today. It aims to discuss issues without downplaying or oversimplifying them, tackle the difficult truths about our lives, and facilitate real, uncompromising discussion. It is not for the weak-hearted, but rather those who believe in the sentiment that, like in life, truth in politics must first disturb us before we are able to be set free. I am grateful to The Philippine STAR for this opportunity.