The recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the dismissal of the impeachment proceeding against Vice President Sara Duterte has sparked friction between the legislative and judicial branches, after Senate President Tito Sotto branded the ruling as “judicial legislation.”

According to Sotto, the SC verdict, “in my view, amended the Constitution.” “Based on the snippets (of the ruling) I’ve seen so far, apparently they did not directly correct in this decision some of the errors or factual mistakes in the past decision.”

“They changed what seems to be the mode of impeachment. It’s now much harder, much more difficult compared to before; it was easier because that was precisely how the framers of the Constitution intended it, especially the so-called Option 3, which they refer to as Option 2.”

Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said the final resolution of the SC addressed how impeachment proceedings are considered “initiated” for the purpose of the one-year bar rule.

Before the ruling, impeachment could be initiated in two ways which is through a verified complaint filed by a member of the House or through at least one-third of the members of the House.

With the ruling, the SC effectively added a specific definition of “initiation.” Proceedings are considered initiated when the complaint is received, calendared within 10 days while Congress is in session, and referred to the committee on justice within three days, also while Congress is in session.

The Court has now defined how the timeline should be interpreted.

In this case, the Court ruled that the earlier complaints had already triggered the one-year bar before the House adopted its Articles of Impeachment on 5 February 2025.

The tribunal’s decision indicated that the doctrine of operative fact does not apply because Congress acted in bad faith.

The doctrine allows past acts to stand even if later declared unconstitutional.

Azcuna added that the court found Congress deliberately avoided acting on earlier complaints to prevent the one-year bar from applying.

“That constitutes bad faith, so Congress cannot invoke the doctrine,” he added.

Regarding Sotto’s judicial-legislation assertion, Azcuna said the Constitution is what the SC says it is.

“Congress has continuing authority to craft impeachment rules. If Congress adopts a new rule that contradicts the SC’s definition, that could result in another constitutional conflict, possibly even a crisis.”

“The decision is final. The only way forward is to comply with the timelines the Court laid down,” he indicated.

If impeachment complaints are filed against both the President and Vice President, how will that affect governance?

Azcuna said the Constitution did not intend for impeachment to be used too frequently against top officials because it distracts them from governance.

“Why are we making it harder now, like what has been done? It’s truly more difficult now. That’s why I say, forgive me, but I think impeachment now is an impossible dream,” Sotto interjected.

“My position and my comments have nothing to do with personalities. It has nothing to do with Vice President Sara. It is about the principle. The principle is that legislation belongs to Congress, not to the Supreme Court. If we want to change the Constitution, we use a Constitutional Convention or a Constituent Assembly,” Sotto indicated.

The crux of Sotto’s complaint is the removal of option 3. Now they’re saying that all signatories must have signed, read, known, and understood the articles of impeachment. We all know that in that situation, all it takes is one person to say, “No, I don’t want to read it. I don’t have time to read.”

A plenary vote in the House requires at least one-third approval to proceed. If initiated by one-third of members, it can bypass full committee review and go directly to the Senate.

“What we can do is meet with them, I mean Congress, the House of Representatives. Because what I see as the outright solution, though it may not be called outright, is to replace the Constitution. Let’s change it,” he explained.

Tribunal committed overreach

“It is a sad day for Constitutional Law students and professors. The Constitution had just been amended unconstitutionally through Supreme Court overreach. When the law is clear, there is nothing to interpret, as any first year law student knows,” Sotto said.

He added that the Court crossed into legislative territory by laying down rules for Congress to follow in impeachment proceedings.

Sotto warned that the ruling could significantly curtail Congress’ impeachment powers under Article XI of the Constitution, which grants the House of Representatives the exclusive authority to initiate impeachment cases.

“Impeachment is now an impossible dream!” he said.

The Senate President said correcting what he described as a misinterpretation of the Constitution could take decades, as future court rulings would be required to revisit the doctrine set by the decision.

SC take must be respected

Senators Panfilo Lacson, who ran for president in the 2022 elections with Sotto as his vice presidential running mate, said the High Court’s decision must be respected regardless of political implications.

“Agree or disagree, right or wrong, just or unjust, faultless or defective — we must accept and respect the SC ruling on the unconstitutionality of VP Sara Duterte’s impeachment case. They are not called the ‘gods of Padre Faura’ for nothing,” Lacson said in a post on X.