House Deputy Minority Leader and Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima warned that the Supreme Court ruling declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional sets a dangerous precedent that weakens the separation of powers.

De Lima issued the statement a day after the high court denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

“The effect is to discipline the procedure that the Constitution left for Congress to decide. This sets a 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,” De Lima said.

She noted that in upholding its original ruling, the Supreme Court also affirmed that its decision did not absolve Vice President Duterte of the offenses she is accused of committing.

The ruling, De Lima said, was based on procedural grounds and did not touch on the merits of the allegations against the Vice President.

“Kaya nga pwedeng-pwedeng magsampa uli ng impeachment case laban kay VP Sara even with the same substantive grounds contained in last year’s complaint.”

However, she stressed that while the ruling rests largely on technicalities, the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration appears to undermine the House’s constitutional powers and prerogatives.

“Ang nagkapareho dun sa main decision or original decision at sa resolution ngayon, at nakakabahala pa rin: Tulad sa naunang desisyon, may paglihis ang Korte Suprema sa letra at diwang nasa Saligang Batas ukol sa pantay at magkahiwalay na kapangyarihan ng Hudikatura at Lehislatura.”

De Lima further said that while the latest ruling closed several doctrinal loopholes in the original decision, the Court also used the motion for reconsideration to restructure and refine its doctrinal pronouncements through an addendum to the original ponencia.

“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.”

She added that by redefining what constitutes the “initiation” of impeachment and treating legislative inaction as a constitutionally operative act, the Court crossed the line from interpretation to legislation.

“It is judicial legislation—well-intentioned perhaps, but constitutionally infirm—because it straightjackets a co-equal branch through judicial overreach. The Supreme Court has not merely reviewed the House’s compliance with clear constitutional commands—it has rewritten the operating manual for impeachment initiation. It has supplied new rules, new timelines, and new consequences that are nowhere found in the text.”