Lawmakers aligned with the House opposition on Saturday expressed caution over Senate President Vicente Sotto III’s proposal to amend the 1987 Constitution following the Supreme Court ruling that voided Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment with finality.
Foremost among them was Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, who said she was “open-minded” about Charter change, depending on its scope.
Sotto earlier assailed the high court’s decision affirming its July 2025 ruling that declared Duterte’s impeachment unconstitutional for violating the rule against initiating more than one impeachment case against the same official within a year.
According to Sotto, the ruling leaves only two options: wait for the current justices to retire and be replaced by members with a different constitutional interpretation, or proceed with Charter change.
De Lima, who also chairs the opposition Liberal Party, said she would only support amendments “if the goal is to clarify the provisions on impeachment and make self-executing the provision barring political dynasties, and amending economic provisions.”
However, she said she would firmly oppose any effort aimed at extending terms, removing term limits, scrapping the ban on political dynasties, or weakening provisions on human rights and social justice.
Her fellow Liberal Party member, Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice, was more categorical in rejecting the proposal, saying Congress, “with all its anomalies, has no moral authority to revise the Constitution as it smacks with a lot of vested interests.”
Erice said any move for Charter change was “ridiculous and suspicious… especially with the 2028 election just two years away.”
He added that a constitutional convention would still require the passage of an enabling law, the election of delegates, and eventual ratification, processes that he said there is “clearly no time” to complete.
Erice also warned that constitutional amendments initiated directly by Congress raise serious questions of moral authority amid controversies over budget insertions and allegations of corruption involving some lawmakers, adding, “Tito Sotto’s rant against the Supreme Court is much ado about nothing.”
Despite her reservations, De Lima said she was interested in proposals for both chambers of Congress to review and possibly amend their own impeachment rules in light of the Supreme Court ruling.
She said she believed there was judicial overreach in the decision, arguing that the court intruded into the powers of the political branches.
De Lima added that what she described as judicial legislation sets a dangerous precedent by weakening the separation of powers and transforming impeachment from a political safeguard into a judicially managed process, contrary to the design and spirit of the Constitution. She said addressing the issue is of transcendental importance.