In former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, the Supreme Court has found an ally in Congress amid incessant attacks from lawmakers. This as Alvarez rejected claims that the court engaged in “judicial legislation” when it junked the impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Alvarez intimated to Nosy Tarsee that the High Tribunal acted well within its constitutional mandate.

The characterization of the Court’s ruling, he said, reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of checks and balances embedded in the Constitution.

Alvarez said the Supreme Court did not legislate but merely exercised its exclusive authority to interpret and apply the Constitution.

Judicial review is a core function of the Court and not an encroachment on congressional powers, he added.

While impeachment is a constitutionally assigned function of Congress, it is not insulated from constitutional scrutiny, according to the former Davao del Norte representative.

The Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of government has committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.

“This power applies to all branches of government, including Congress,” he said. “Political discretion does not translate into constitutional immunity.”