House declines to answer some impeachment queries from SC, cites separation of powers

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

The House did not answer questions pertaining to its internal proceedings on Duterte's impeachment, saying it is 'beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny' of the Supreme Court

MANILA, Philippines – The House of Representatives complied with the Supreme Court’s directive to comment on the consolidated petition questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, but withheld answers to some questions from the High Court.

While it is standard procedure for the Supreme Court to ask respondents of a petition to submit their comments, the July 8 resolution stood out due to the level of factual details that the Court sought from the House.

The information sought ranged from the dates the original impeachment complaints were filed, to whether lawmakers had the time to evaluate the charges before affixing their signatures to the final complaint.

The House, in its submission dated July 17 through the Office of the Solicitor General, declined to answer the following:

• which office or committee prepared the drafts of the impeachment complaint when it was completed;
• when the impeachment complaint was circulated to House members and whether it was circulated to all of them;
• whether the impeachment complaint was accompanied by evidence for each article for the information of House members to decide if they would endorse it or not.

“It is the position of the House that these matters pertain to its internal proceedings, which have always been regarded as beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny of this Honorable Court,” the House filing read, a copy of which Rappler obtained on Tuesday, July 22.

“This restraint on the part of Respondent House is grounded on no less than the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. Being a co-equal branch, the Congress is entitled to respect with regard to these matters which are within its exclusive jurisdiction,” it added.

The House maintained that the information sought by the Supreme Court highlights the fact that it cannot be a trier of facts “as the Constitution vests jurisdiction of the impeachment trial with the Senate.”

So what did the House answer?

The House, however, used the filing as an opportunity to shed some clarity on some queries of the Court.

One of the main points of contention of Duterte’s camp was that the House violated the constitutional one-year bar, which states that only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against an official within a year.

Duterte’s camp had argued the articles of impeachment — listed in the fourth impeachment complaint in February this year — were void because there were three complaints lodged against her in December 2024. She claimed the House deliberately didn’t act on the first three complaints.

But the House insisted that the three complains were transmitted to the Speaker’s office and included in the order of business in the plenary within the 10-session-day timetable prescribed by the Constitution.

The House said that based on its count, the period of December 2 (the date the first complaint was filed) to February 5 (the day the first three complaints were archived because they were rendered moot after the fourth complaint garnered the signature threshold) did not exceed 10 session days.

This table provided by the House explains that numerous calendar days can count as one session day. Screenshot from OSG pleading

The Supreme Court had also asked the House whether it gave Duterte the opportunity to be heard, but the House said neither the Constitution nor House rules require the chamber to do so, since the transmitted complaint already had support of one-third of the House.

Concerns about SC’s request

ML Representative Leila de Lima, who is set to join the prosecution panel, previously expressed worries that the Supreme Court’s directive to the House could be used as an excuse by the Senate to further delay the trial.

“Out of judicial courtesy to the Supreme Court, to avoid making the issues raised in the two petitions moot and academic, [the Senate] will not do anything and wait for the final resolution of the petitions,” she had said.

Former Supreme Court associate justice Antonio Carpio had said the High Court’s instructions were unusual, but not irregular.

Senate President Chiz Escudero said senators are eyeing to start the impeachment trial of Duterte on August 4, a week after the 20th Congress opens on July 28. – Rappler.com