RETIRED Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio yesterday defended the impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, saying the House of Representatives “strictly followed” the 1987 Constitution in doing so.
Carpio issued the statement as the SC prepares to rule on petitions questioning the impeachment of Duterte.
“The overriding issue here is whether the House of Representatives violated the provision of the Constitution mandating that an impeachment complaint shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three days thereafter,” said Carpio.
“The House has manifested, both to the Senate and to the Supreme Court, that the House did not violate this provision of the Constitution,” he added, citing the official legal position submitted to the High Court.
Saying that the timeline is crucial to the House defense, Carpio noted that the first impeachment complaint was filed on Dec. 2, 2024.
He said that after accounting for the House’s recess from Dec. 21, 2024 to Jan. 12, 2025, the complaints were included in the Order of Business on the 10th session day in compliance with the Constitution.
“Thus, the House manifested that the first three impeachment complaints were included in the Order of Business on the 10th session day from the filing of the first impeachment complaint,” he added.
Carpio further explained that on that same 10th session day, the verified resolution calling for the impeachment of Duterte — signed by more than the required one-third of all House members — was formally submitted to the secretary general, consistent with the rules governing impeachment.
The Constitution states that “in case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
With this, Carpio said on the 10th session day from the filing of the first impeachment complaint, the verified resolution signed by more than one-third of all the members of the House automatically, by operation of the Constitution, became the approved Articles of Impeachment to be transmitted to the Senate.
Earlier, several legal experts warned that a ruling from the SC invalidating the impeachment proceedings could trigger a constitutional crisis, raising the specter of judicial overreach into what has long been regarded as the exclusive domain of Congress.
While the SC has yet to release its decision, Carpio’s remarks reflect growing concern among constitutionalists that the Court may be encroaching on the prerogatives of the legislative branch.
“The Constitution was followed. The threshold was met. The process was legal and complete. That should be the end of it,” Carpio said.
The SC earlier ordered that both chambers submit, under oath and with supporting documents, detailed information within 10 days of receiving the order.
Among information sought by the SC are current status of the initial three impeachment complaints filed by private citizens; exact dates these private complaints were endorsed by House members; clarification on whether the House secretary general possesses discretionary power over the transmittal of endorsed impeachment complaints to the Speaker; and date when the Articles of Impeachment were included in the House’s order of business for plenary consideration.
