Chief of PhilConsa Says SC Must Not Neglect Principle that “Prohibits the Judiciary from Interfering”
PHILCONSA – The Philippine Constitution Association Foundation Inc. expressed grave concern on the “new rules” of the Supreme Court in the impeachment process.
Currently, there are a lot of questions and speculations as to whether or not the Senate will proceed with the trial following the Supreme Court ruling. Before the 20th Congress started, the Supreme Court has declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte for not following the one-year rule.
The court also found that Duterte was denied of her rights to due process. Despite the ruling, it maintained that the decision does not dismisses the charges filed against the Vice President. The ruling was in response to the petition filed by Duterte herself, Atty. Israelito Torreon, and several others seeking for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.
In 2024, four (4) impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte. But, the House of Representatives maintained that the previous complaints were not referred. Some complainants recently filed a motion for reconsideration in the Supreme Court ruling of Vice Pres. Sara Duterte’s impeachment complaint.
The decision of the high court gained different reactions. Recently, the Philippine Constitution Association Foundation Inc. or PhilConSa expressed grave concern over the alleged “new rules” of the Supreme Court in the impeachment process.
Based on a report on PhilStar, PhilConSa chairperson and former chief justice Reynato Puno claimed in a statement that there are allegedly seven new rules set by the Supreme Court for compliance by the House of Representatives. Among these alleged new rules require that the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment should be with a sufficient evidence and there must be reasonable time for the House members to decide on whether or not to endorse the complaint.
According to Puno, the new rules of the Supreme Court alleged gave the court the powers that can deprive the lower chamber of its exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment as stated in Article XI (3) of the Constitution. The PhilConSa Chief also expressed his belief that the move opposes the role of justices as umpires in interpreting the Constitution.
“They should not act as pitchers or batters in favor of any party. The exercise of this new power which the Court gifted itself will border the anomalous when a member of the Court becomes a respondent in an impeachment case,” the PhilConSa chief said.
Based on the report, former chief justice Reynato Puno also claimed that the Supreme Court must not neglect the principle that “prohibits the judiciary from interfering with the initial of the process of impeachment by the House of Representatives. Previously, House Speaker Martin Romualdez stressed that the House has the “exclusive” duty to initiate impeachment.