JV supports peers’ SC ‘overreach’ claim, rejects charter change

Senator JV Ejercito on Sunday echoed the concerns of fellow legislators that the Supreme Court inadvertently committed “judicial overreach” by issuing a finality decision voiding the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. He argued, however, that a Charter change (Cha-cha) is not the best solution to prevent the recurrence of the high court overstepping Congress and infringing on its internal affairs.

This developed after Senate President Tito Sotto III announced that he would back efforts to amend the Constitution to discourage the SC from breaching the separation of powers and intervening in the impeachment process—a power exclusively vested in Congress.

“Impeachment, as stated in that law, is Congress’ primary job and responsibility...That's very clear,” Ejercito said in Filipino in a radio interview.

“We want to respect the SC as a co-equal branch, but in a way, I also agree that there is a bit of overreach because this impeachment process should really [be supposed to fall under the jurisdiction] of the [House of Representatives] and the Senate,” he added.

Efforts for a Cha-cha have been religiously pursued in every Congress but never flourished in the Senate due to several factors, including concerns that it may extend politicians' term limits.

Ejercito agreed with the need to relax the restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution to entice foreign direct investments and help the Philippines be at par with ASEAN neighbors.

He, however, argued that amending the 39-year-old Charter would require further study, warning that it could have potentially dangerous implications.

Besides, Ejercito agreed with House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice that there’s no time left to prioritize Cha-cha, given that the administration has just a little over two years remaining.

He argued that it is best to devote the remaining years of President Marcos Jr. to more pressing issues, such as jailing the culprits behind the corruption scheme in the flood control scandal.

Last week, Sotto announced plans to set up a caucus with the House leadership this month to discuss steps to address concerns that the SC is encroaching on the lawmaking process.

Sotto lamented that the SC ruling made the impeachment process extremely difficult and opened it to more abuse, with baseless complaints being deliberately filed to trigger the one-year bar, which prohibits the filing of more than one impeachment complaint against an official within a one-year period.

“What they did was extreme; this was on another level. They made a mess of the Constitution,” Sotto told reporters on Friday. “Power should not be abused. As I’ve said, this tantamounts to [judicial] overreach; they have no right to amend the Constitution.”

Specifically, Sotto took offense at the SC’s alleged wrong interpretation of calendar days and adjournments, thereby amending the Constitution in effect.

The Senate leader also agreed with speculation that the high court intentionally complicated the impeachment process to its own advantage, since the SC justices themselves are impeachable officials.

The SC on Thursday unanimously affirmed its July ruling that found the House’s fourth impeachment case against Duterte unconstitutional, null, and void ab initio (from the beginning) for violating the one-year bar rule.

Recall that VP Duterte faced four impeachment cases in total, with the first three being filed all in December but not referred to the Speaker’s office nor included in the order of business.

She was officially impeached on 5 February after 215 lawmakers signed the fourth complaint.

The number of votes was more than double the required one-third of the entire House, resulting in the prompt transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, bypassing committee hearings.

The SC ruled, however, that the House’s expediting of the fourth complaint robbed Duterte of her rights to be heard first before she is put on trial. The decision also states that when the 19th Congress ended without the House acting on the first three complaints, those complaints were “effectively terminated and dismissed,” and the one-year bar was reckoned.

The House, however, argued that the one-year bar was “never circumvented” because the initiation was triggered only when the fourth complaint exceeded the required threshold—a prerequisite in the impeachment process.

The chamber explained that “session days” refer strictly to days when legislative business is carried out, but the SC countered that the term includes any calendar day the House holds sessions.