‘Leonen’s charter-breaking ruling may shield Duterte for now — but it exposes him to impeachment.’
THE Supreme Court has crossed a line it cannot redraw. By striking down the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, it did not defend the Constitution but broke it.
In declaring Congress powerless to proceed, the justices turned themselves into Duterte’s last bastion, a fortress shielding her from accountability while eroding the very Charter they are sworn to uphold.
The Constitution is explicit: impeachment belongs to Congress alone. Yet Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, writing for a unanimous Court, redefined when a complaint is “initiated” and imposed new due process requirements absent from both text and precedent. This was not an interpretation. It was an invention — a judicial rewrite that usurps the sole prerogative of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Worse, the Court anchored its ruling on error. ABS-CBN has publicly refuted the decision’s claim that the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment without a plenary vote. In truth, 215 members endorsed the complaint in an open session broadcast live nationwide. For the nation’s highest tribunal to cite what the press itself calls a falsehood is not a trivial misstep. It is a breach of truth that disfigures the ruling at its core.
Former justices Adolfo Azcuna, Artemio Panganiban, and Antonio Carpio have warned of the damage. Azcuna called the ruling “unfair,” punishing Congress for relying on the Court’s old definition of initiation. Panganiban lamented the absence of oral arguments in a case of “transcendental importance.” Carpio flagged the “unusual” timing and pointed to a narrow two-hour window that could validate the House action, insisting the Constitution “was followed to the letter.”
These voices are not partisan. They are guardians of jurisprudence, sounding the alarm that today’s Court has forsaken restraint.
By nullifying the impeachment, the Court has more than shielded Sara Duterte. It has violated the separation of powers, the cornerstone of our system. Leonen’s charter-breaking ruling may shield Duterte for now, but it exposes him to impeachment.
The ruling is immediately executory. Yet the House motion for reconsideration now forces the justices to confront a grave choice: to admit error and restore constitutional balance, or to double down and enshrine themselves as the ultimate arbiters not of law, but of partisan politics. If this precedent stands, impeachments will be rendered impotent, and the nation’s highest officials will enjoy impunity beyond the reach of the people.
The Supreme Court calls itself the guardian of the Constitution. But when it distorts text, cites falsehoods, and claims powers not its own, it becomes something else entirely — a breaker of the Constitution. By shielding Duterte, the Court risks being remembered not for upholding the law but for breaking it.
