Congress retains power to check judiciary despite SC ruling, Ridon says

House Committee on Public Accounts Chairman Terry L. Ridon of the Bicol Saro Party-list on Saturday said the impeachment of justices and congressional oversight of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) remain among Congress’ constitutional powers to check the Supreme Court.

Ridon made the remarks during a Saturday Media Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City, saying the legislature retains clear mechanisms to ensure accountability within the judiciary, even as the High Court enjoys judicial autonomy.

“Members of the Supreme Court can be subject to impeachment proceedings,” Ridon said, noting that accountability mechanisms apply not only to officials in the executive branch but also to those in the judiciary.

He added that Congress likewise retains oversight authority over judicial expenditures, particularly the use of the JDF.

“Even if they actually enjoy judicial autonomy, I think Congress continues to possess powers to basically check particular expenditures of the judiciary, particularly their use of the Judicial Development Fund,” Ridon said.

Ridon made the remarks amid continuing discussions on the scope of congressional powers following recent Supreme Court rulings affecting the impeachment process.

He stressed that these constitutional tools form part of the system of checks and balances embedded in the 1987 Constitution.

“I think that is something that Congress could undertake as part of the checks and balances of Congress to the judiciary,” Ridon said.

Meanwhile, House Committee on Justice Vice Chairperson Joel R. Chua of Manila said during the same forum that the Supreme Court ruling on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte dealt only with procedural issues and left substantive allegations unresolved, including the so-called Mary Grace Piattos issue.

Chua stressed that the High Court did not rule on the merits of the impeachment complaint.

“Alam po ninyo naging decision po ng SC, hindi nila din dine-sisyunan ang substansya ng impeachment complaint,” said Chua, who also chairs the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability. “Ang pinag-usapan dito ang sheer technicality.”

Chua said the Court’s ruling did not address the core allegations raised in the complaint, leaving key issues unsettled.

“So pagdating sa substansya wala naman silang may mention dito kaya maganda rin at very interesting din dahil hanggang ngayon hindi pa rin na-resolve ang laman ng impeachment complaint,” he said.

He added that it was inaccurate to claim the substance of the case had already been passed upon, noting that the Court tackled only procedural questions. Chua pointed out that impeachment complaints often gain support as proceedings unfold and evidence is examined.

He cited past impeachment cases, including that of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, where initial skepticism gave way to broader backing once trial proceedings progressed.

“Noong una isinampa ‘yung impeachment complaint ni dating Chief Justice Renato Corona, noong una wala po itong suporta sa mga senador, pero nakita po natin na noong nag-progress po ‘yung trial, nag-iba ang mga pulso at mga boto ng senador,” Chua said.

Chua said the same principle applies to the current situation, stressing that unresolved allegations remain subject to congressional scrutiny.

Ridon echoed the view, stressing that the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the impeachment case.

“Ang pinag-debatehan lang sa Kongreso kung barred ba ‘yung trinansmit to the Senate,” Ridon said.

He said the Court’s decision revolved around technical and procedural questions, not the substantive allegations.

Both lawmakers said the evaluation of impeachment cases ultimately rests on evidence and the judgment of Congress.

The Mary Grace Piattos issue, which has drawn public attention and ridicule due to its name, was described by lawmakers as a serious matter of accountability.