In a stunning display of judicial audacity, the Supreme Court’s recent inquiry into the cognitive diligence of House members regarding the impeachment charges against Vice President Sara Duterte has ignited a firestorm of constitutional controversy. This is not merely a procedural misstep but a flagrant transgression against the doctrine of separation of powers, a cornerstone of democratic governance. Retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, a jurist of unimpeachable intellect and gravitas, has rightly branded this maneuver as judicial overreach, a term that now reverberates with the weight of institutional betrayal.
The Supreme Court, in its overzealous pursuit of procedural purity, has ventured into terrain it has no business traversing. To question whether legislators read and understood the articles of impeachment before affixing their signatures is not only insulting but institutionally corrosive. The Constitution, in its wisdom, enshrines the doctrine of conclusive presumption, a legal shield against precisely this kind of judicial intrusion. It presumes, with deliberate finality, that the House has discharged its duties with due diligence. To pierce this presumption is to unravel the very fabric of constitutional trust.
Carpio’s rebuke is not a mere academic critique; it is a clarion call against the erosion of democratic norms. He draws a compelling parallel: no one dares ask the Supreme Court justices whether they read every line of a decision they sign, nor does anyone interrogate the President’s comprehension of an executive order he authorizes. These acts are presumed to be executed with full awareness and responsibility. Why then, should the House be subjected to a humiliating inquisition? The answer is simple: IT SHOULD NOT.
This judicial incursion reeks of institutional arrogance. It presupposes that the Supreme Court, cloaked in its self-anointed infallibility, may scrutinize the internal deliberations of a co-equal branch. Such hubris is not only unbecoming but dangerous. It sets a precedent whereby the judiciary may second-guess the legislative process, thereby undermining the autonomy of elected representatives and, by extension, the will of the people they serve.
Moreover, the implications of this overreach are not confined to the present controversy. They cast a long and ominous shadow over future proceedings. If the Supreme Court can question the sincerity or comprehension of lawmakers today, what prevents it from invalidating legislative acts tomorrow on the basis of presumed ignorance or negligence? This is a slippery slope toward judicial tyranny, where robes replace ballots as the ultimate arbiters of political legitimacy.
Carpio’s insistence on taking the House’s verification at face value is not naïveté but a clear constitutional fidelity. The verification is sworn under oath, a solemn act that carries legal and moral weight. To dismiss it is to impugn the integrity of the signatories and to trivialize the sanctity of their oath. It is a judicial slap in the face, delivered with the cold indifference of institutional overconfidence.
The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to police the internal mechanics of legislative deliberation. Its authority is immense, but it is not boundless. When it strays beyond its mandate, it ceases to be a guardian of justice and becomes a usurper of democratic process. This episode is a textbook case of such transgression, and it must be condemned with the full force of constitutional clarity.
In the grand architecture of governance, each branch has its domain. The legislature crafts laws and initiates impeachment; the judiciary interprets and adjudicates; the executive enforces. When one branch encroaches upon another, the balance is disturbed, and the system teeters on the brink of dysfunction. The Supreme Court’s actions in this case are not merely inappropriate; they are destabilizing.
Justice Carpio’s intervention is a necessary act of resistance. It is a defense of constitutional order against the creeping encroachment of judicial absolutism. His words are not just a critique but are a shield, forged in the fires of jurisprudential wisdom, against the excesses of a Court that has momentarily forgotten its place.
Let this be a moment of reckoning. Let it be a reminder that power, no matter how cloaked in legal robes, must be tempered by humility and constrained by law. The Supreme Court must retreat from this perilous path and reaffirm its commitment to constitutional boundaries. Anything less is not justice but a judicial imperialism masquerading as oversight.