Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima has criticized the Supreme Court (SC) over its recent resolution ordering the House of Representatives to submit clarificatory information addressing concerns about the legality of the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte, warning that it may be a case of “judicial overreach.”

De Lima said it's “very disconcerting” for the SC to order the House to comply even with those that she considered petty requirements, which only seem to cast doubt on the validity of the impeachment complaint as well as the actions taken by the legislature. 

“My impression, again with all due respect to the Supreme Court, is that it went too far. It seems that it has the hallmarks of what we call judicial overreach. Could it be that the Supreme Court is intervening too much in the impeachment process that originated from the House of Representatives?” the former senator and Justice secretary said in an interview on Sunday.

De Lima and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno had been tapped by former House speaker Martin Romualdez to join the prosecution panel as replacements to two prosecutors who lost their re-election bids in the 12 May polls. 

The said resolution requires Congress — the House and the Senate — to submit detailed information on the filing and processing of the four impeachment complaints lodged against Duterte, one of which was transmitted to the Senate for trial. 

The resolution contains the consolidated petitions of Duterte and a group of Mindanaoan lawyers led by Atty. Isrelito Torreon, aiming to block the looming impeachment proceedings in the Senate. 

Among the requirements for the House are whether the fourth impeachment complaint was properly circulated to all House members and whether they were given sufficient time to review it before affixing their signatures as part of the complainants. 

The SC also asked for the time frame of the initiation of the impeachment complaints filed by private citizens until the transmittal of the fourth petition, as well as whether the complaint was included in the order of business of the House for consideration by the entire plenary.

It also demands an explanation from House Secretary-General Reginald Velasco if he has the authority to refuse the swift transmittal of the first three impeachment complaints to former House Speaker Martin Romualdez’s office after being endorsed by some members of the House. 

Doubts disguised as requirements

De Lima viewed this move by the SC as "doubts" about whether the House properly complied with the constitutional rules on impeachment.

"We know that those articles of impeachment are based on a verified complaint signed and endorsed by 215 members of the House... So why is the Supreme Court still interested in the first three complaints that were filed by private citizens and private groups? There are a lot of questions concerning this step taken by the Supreme Court," the lawmaker asserted. 

The House impeached Duterte on 5 February, just two months after the first three impeachment complaints were lodged by civilian and religious groups.

The fourth complaint transmitted to the Senate outlines seven articles of impeachment, indicting the VP of graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other high crimes. 

Barely a week after being impeached, Duterte herself had urged the high court to nullify the fourth impeachment complaint, accusing the House leadership and Velasco of grave abuse of discretion for intentionally withholding the first three impeachment complaints to circumvent the initiation prescribed by the Constitution, from which a one-year bar will be triggered.

The VP accused Velasco of “deliberately [freezing] the entire initiation and impeachment process,” by waiting for the fourth impeachment complaint, rendering the constitutional one-year ban “futile and meaningless.”

What violation? 

The House prosecution panel has maintained that the one-year prohibition was “never circumvented” because the initiation was only triggered when the fourth impeachment complaint was verified and signed by more than the required 1/3 votes, allowing it to bypass committee hearings and be transmitted directly to the Senate for trial.

Backing the standpoint of the prosecutors relying heavily on an SC ruling, De Lima narrated that an impeachment proceeding is only considered initiated once it is referred to the justice committee—not when it's transmitted to the Speaker's or included in the order of business. 

The House secretary general is constitutionally mandated to refer an impeachment complaint to the Speaker’s office, and within 10 session days from receipt, the document shall be included in the order of business.

Afterward, the complaint should then be referred within three session days to the House Committee on Justice, which will determine whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance before endorsing its report on the plenary for a resolution to be adopted by the entire House. 

The constitution, however, allows the House to expedite the process through the shortcut route of garnering the required votes of 1/3, or equivalent to 106 House members. 

Meanwhile, De Lima already anticipates that Francis 'Chiz' Escudero and pro-Duterte senator-judges will invoke the SC's order as a ground to further delay the trial.

"As my foremost concern...the Senate or the majority of the Senate might think that 'we should not move for now [and] let's just wait for the Supreme Court out of judicial courtesy because everything we do might be ignored if the Supreme Court's decision is ultimately in favor of the petitioners'," she said.

However, she also insists that there’s no legal impediment for the Senate to stall the trial further unless the SC issues a temporary restraining order. 

The Senate is expected to try Duterte when the 20th Congress opens on 28 July. A two-thirds vote — or at least 16 of the 24 senators — is required to convict and permanently bar Duterte from holding public office, derailing her potential bid for the presidency.