Philippine lawmakers moved swiftly this week to back revisions to impeachment rules after the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on Vice President Sara Duterte ignited a fresh confrontation between Congress and the judiciary, raising fears that the courts have encroached on powers the Constitution assigns exclusively to elected legislators.
The dispute follows a January 2026 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed its earlier ruling striking down impeachment articles against Ms Duterte as unconstitutional. While the judgment left the door open for a new impeachment effort after February 6, 2026, it also introduced new procedural conditions that lawmakers say effectively narrow Congress’s constitutional authority.
For legislative leaders, the ruling is less about one official than about institutional boundaries. Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III warned that the balance of power has tilted, prompting discussions on revising House rules and, if needed, amending the Constitution.
A ruling that reshaped impeachment timelines
The Supreme Court first intervened in July 2025, declaring impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte invalid. In its January 30, 2026 decision denying a motion for reconsideration, the Court went further, clarifying what it considers the “initiation” of impeachment — the trigger for the Constitution’s one-year ban on repeat complaints.
Under the ruling, impeachment is deemed initiated not only when a complaint is formally filed but also when:
- Verified complaints fail to appear in the House’s Order of Business or reach the justice committee within a set timeframe;
- Properly referred complaints lapse because the House takes no action before Congress adjourns indefinitely.
Lawmakers argue these conditions are not written into the 1987 Constitution, which grants the House alone the power to initiate impeachment. To them, the Court’s step-by-step definitions amount to rewriting the rulebook.
Lawmakers warn of ‘undue interference’
Speaking after the ruling, Mr Sotto said the Senate would coordinate with House leaders to examine changes to impeachment rules. “I see the need to address what I describe as ‘undue interference’ by the judiciary in matters that are constitutionally vested in the legislature,” he said.
His remarks carried an unusually candid edge. Mr Sotto added that “the country cannot afford to wait for the retirement of the current Supreme Court justices,” noting that a majority were appointed by former president Rodrigo Duterte, the vice president’s father.
House Committee on Public Accounts chair Terry Ridon echoed the criticism, questioning the Court’s emphasis on strict timelines. “I think they should also look at themselves — whether they are able to comply with the 24-month period for resolving cases,” he said, referring to the judiciary’s own procedural standards.
Accusations of judicial lawmaking
For members of the opposition, the ruling crosses a constitutional line. Representative Ila de Lima of the Makabayan bloc said the Court had shifted from interpretation to legislation.
“The Supreme Court has not merely evaluated the House’s adherence to explicit constitutional directives — it has rewritten the operational guidelines for initiating impeachment,” she said. “By redefining the ‘initiation’ of impeachment and transforming legislative inaction into a constitutionally effective act, the Court has crossed that boundary.”
Others struck a more restrained tone, stressing respect for the judiciary while making clear their disagreement. One lawmaker summed up the mood: “While we will comply with and respect the ruling of the Supreme Court, this does not mean that we agree with it.”
What it means for accountability
Impeachment is often described as Congress’s ultimate safety valve — a constitutional mechanism that allows elected representatives to check powerful officials when other remedies fail. Ordinary citizens cannot file impeachment cases themselves; they must rely on legislators to act on their behalf.
Critics of the ruling fear that added procedural hurdles could dull that safeguard, making impeachment less a constitutional tool than a narrow legal maze. Supporters of the Court’s approach counter that clearer rules prevent abuse and protect due process.
The stakes extend beyond politics. Prolonged uncertainty over constitutional interpretation can affect political stability, governability and, indirectly, economic confidence — concerns that resonate even in countries like Malta, where investors and policymakers watch developments in Asia-Pacific democracies for signals of institutional resilience.
Legal experts urge pragmatism
Atty. Jennifer Arlene Reyes, a constitutional law expert, described the ruling as an overreach but emphasised its practical limits. “The decision does not constitute an obstruction to filing a new impeachment complaint,” she said, noting that the one-year bar expires on February 6.
Rather than waiting for changes in the Court’s composition or embarking immediately on constitutional amendments, Ms Reyes suggested a tactical response: revise House rules to comply with the Court’s guidelines while preserving the legislature’s role.
February 6 and the road ahead
As the expiry of the one-year bar approaches, attention is turning to what Congress will do next. New impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte are legally possible after that date — provided they navigate the stricter framework now laid down by the Court.
For lawmakers, the episode has crystallised a larger question: whether the Constitution’s checks and balances remain in equilibrium, or whether one branch has begun to tighten the rules of engagement to its own design.
In the coming weeks, proposed rule changes — and talk of constitutional amendments — will test that balance, determining whether impeachment remains a blunt instrument for accountability or a carefully fenced-off power, guarded as closely as a courtroom’s doors.
