The Supreme Court has no business meddling in Congress’ impeachment power
The Supreme Court’s decision to require the House of Representatives to justify its impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte is a textbook case of judicial overreach. By inserting itself into a process that the Constitution vests in Congress, the high court is not defending the rule of law; it is dangerously blurring separation of powers.
Impeachment is, and has always been, a political mechanism, not a judicial one. The framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately placed the power to initiate impeachment in the House and to try cases in the Senate. Nowhere did they grant the judiciary a supervisory role over Congress’ internal proceedings. Yet here we are: the Supreme Court demands comments, entertains petitions for temporary restraining orders (TROs), and effectively acts as a referee in a political drama it has no constitutional authority to officiate.
The VP and her allies have filed consolidated petitions, arguing that the House justice committee exceeded its authority, conducted a “mini-trial,” and engaged in a “fishing expedition.” The remedy for an unfair committee hearing is not a writ from the Supreme Court; it is a vote on the House floor or ultimately, an acquittal in the Senate. The Constitution’s separation of powers is not a suggestion. It is a wall, and the Supreme Court is trying to punch a hole through it.
The Court’s order is troubling because it comes with a “non-extendible” deadline for the House to comment, yet refuses to issue a TRO. This halfway measure signals judicial intrusion without immediate relief, leaving the impeachment process in a state of legal limbo. What exactly is the Court reviewing—the wisdom of the committee’s subpoenas, the adequacy of the complaints? Those are not questions of constitutional law; they are questions of legislative strategy and political judgment.
The Court is inviting itself into every future impeachment. If the justices can second-guess what constitutes a “trial in disguise” or a “fishing expedition,” then no impeachment proceeding will be safe from judicial delay. Respondents will simply run to Manila and ask for a TRO every time a committee chair asks a tough question. That is not justice. That is a recipe for paralysis.
The Supreme Court has long recognized the political-question doctrine, the principle that certain constitutional disputes are committed to the political branches and are not justiciable. Impeachment is the quintessential political question. The late Justice Isagani Cruz, one of the country’s foremost constitutionalists, once wrote that the Court should stay away from impeachment “as if it were the plague.”
The VP is entitled to due process. But due process in impeachment means the right to present a defense before the Senate, not the right to ask the Supreme Court to micromanage a House committee. The Court’s intervention does not protect constitutional rights; it undermines the Constitution’s clear allocation of power.
If the House justice committee is acting in bad faith, if it is conducting a vindictive “fishing expedition” or a premature trial, the remedy lies in the political arena: public opinion, floor debates, and ultimately, the ballot box. The Supreme Court has no business dressing up political grievances in legal robes.
Let Congress do its job. Let the people judge the VP and her accusers in the next election. The Supreme Court’s role is to decide cases and controversies, not direct political theater. By stepping into this drama, the Court is not saving the Constitution. It is becoming part of the problem.
MANNY ILAO,
manny.ilao@yahoo.com
For letters to the editor and contributed articles, email to opinion@inquirer.net
