There’s a reason why the Supreme Court is often called “the court of last resort.” Being the final arbiter, it interprets the law and settles all legal disputes and controversies. Once it speaks, everyone is expected to abide by it under pain of contempt. Its decision is the last stop. 

The other day, the Court denied with finality the House of Representatives’ motion for reconsideration of its earlier decision regarding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. This means it has effectively ended the proceedings and the only remedy left is for complainants to initiate another impeachment case. 

In a nutshell, the Tribunal declared the subject Articles of Impeachment void because it blatantly violated the “one-year bar” rule. Note that three earlier complaints were filed in December 2024 and they were deemed “initiated” when the House failed to act on them within the mandatory 10-day period. Hence, the fourth one transmitted to the Senate is not valid. 

Aside from this, it also clarified that a “session day” refers to any calendar day the House holds a session. As a result, the House technically missed the deadline for the first group of complaints. 

Some members of Congress adamantly criticized the Court’s decision, calling it a flagrant case of judicial legislation and outright encroachment of their right to set and implement their own rules. In fact, Senate President Tito Sotto has called for the amendment of the Constitution if only to address such “transgression.”

To be honest, their reaction is expected. Because while the Court has not really sabotaged this constitutional process, it has unwittingly deprived them of their discretion in handling impeachment complaints and, to a certain extent, stifled the opportunity to manipulate them. 

Impeachment, in reality, is a numbers game. It is difficult to pull off because the subject impeachable officials, on account of the nature of their posts and the immense public support they get, are usually too powerful and influential to be removed. So any member of Congress would think twice before throwing support to any move to impeach an official because of potential public backlash and its impact on their political career. 

This is why impeachment proceedings require judicious time to pursue. They involve a lot of convincing, concessions, and even giving of incentives to generate support from members. In the case of the Vice President, the former speaker allegedly bribed his colleagues to support her impeachment. In the case of Chief Justice Corona’s conviction, the President then allegedly gifted every Senator who convicted him pork barrel funds north of five million pesos. 

So, by speeding up the process, the Court is now denying our legislators enough room to maneuver and strategize. To a certain extent, this is a good thing. Because historically, impeachment has been weaponized for political gains and not really the pursuit of accountability.