Carpio: SC should limit review to Constitution in Sara Duterte case

Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and VP Sara Duterte composite image from Inquirer files

MANILA, Philippines—Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio has cautioned the Supreme Court against overstepping its bounds in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, saying the Court’s role should be limited to constitutional questions, not the internal details of congressional proceedings.

Carpio specifically noted that the Supreme Court’s order required Congress to submit information on matters such as whether all 215 House members who signed the articles of impeachment actually read them.

He remarked that such questions go beyond what is typically asked of a co-equal branch of government.

“You do not ask those questions anymore,” Carpio said, adding that once lawmakers sign a resolution or bill, “you give full faith and credit already that they read it.”

He further argued that the Supreme Court should respect the boundaries between co-equal branches of government:

“We do not ask the members of the Supreme Court, when they sign a decision, did you read the decision? No, we don’t ask those questions anymore. Out of respect to our co-equal branch, you don’t ask those questions anymore.”

Carpio, speaking on ANC’s Headstart, clarified that in the current case, the only constitutional issue the Supreme Court should address is whether the House of Representatives followed the 10-session day rule for acting on impeachment complaints.

“So the only constitutional issue pending now in the Supreme Court that matters is whether the House followed the 10-day session limit,” Carpio said.

“In other words, from the time the first impeachment complaint was filed, it must be acted upon by the House plenary within 10 session days,” he added.

READ: Carpio: SC’s Sara Duterte impeachment order hinges on session days

SC seeks detailed impeachment timeline

The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated July 8, consolidated two petitions—one from Vice President Duterte herself and another from a group of Mindanao lawyers—challenging the impeachment process.

The high court ordered both the House and Senate to submit sworn timelines and documents about when complaints were filed, endorsed, and circulated, as well as records of the actions taken by the House Secretary General.

The directive gave Congress a non-extendible deadline, with the Court specifically seeking to clarify whether the 10-session day rule was observed.

Carpio pointed out that the core of the dispute remains factual, whether the House complied with the 10-session day requirement, not whether every procedural step was personally verified by each lawmaker.

“All that the House has to do is to submit the dates that everything was complied with under the Constitution,” he said.

The House of Representatives, for its part, has vowed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.

READ: House vows to submit additional impeachment details to SC

“We confirm that the House has officially received a copy of the Supreme Court’s Resolution dated July 8, 2025, in G.R. No. 278353 and 278359, or the twin petitions filed by Vice-President Sara Zimmerman Duterte and Atty. Isrelito P. Torreon, et al., to challenge the impeachment trial pending before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court,” said House spokesperson Princess Abante.

“The House of Representatives and Secretary-General Reginald S. Velasco, as respondents in the said petitions, have been required to submit the additional information enumerated in the Resolution, and will comply accordingly,” she added.

SC’s order hints at doubts, possible overreach

Carpio’s reservations were echoed by Mamamayang Liberal party-list Representative Leila de Lima, who said she was “very concerned” that most of the Supreme Court’s requests for information were directed at the House, not the Senate.

In a June 13 interview over dzBB, De Lima observed, “Sa mga hinihingi, halos wala namang hinihingi sa Senado eh, more sa Kamara. … Para bang meron silang duda na ginawa ng tama yung proseso ng House of Representatives.”

(With the information being requested, almost nothing is being asked of the Senate—it’s mostly directed at the House. It’s as if they have doubts that the House of Representatives followed the correct process.)

She pointed to the Supreme Court’s questions about whether the articles of impeachment were actually circulated to all members—not just those who signed—describing the move as “sobra naman ata (that might be going too far)” and saying it “has the hallmarks of what we call judicial overreach.”

READ: Legal experts split on SC’s detailed order in Sara Duterte case

The Senate, on its part, noted that many of the details now being sought by the Supreme Court from the House of Representatives were also previously requested by the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.

In its manifestation to the Supreme Court, the Senate pointed out that the information covered by the first five items in the Supreme Court’s order mirrored what the Senate had already asked the House to provide during the course of the proceedings.

READ: Senate to SC: We have the same questions about VP impeachment

For the remaining items in the Court’s order, the Senate explained that only the House of Representatives and its Secretary General would have the necessary information and be able to submit the required documents.

Why focus on the first three complaints?

De Lima also questioned why the Supreme Court seemed interested in the earlier complaints filed by private citizens, even though the impeachment articles sent to the Senate were those endorsed directly by over 215 House members.

“So bakit interesado pa yung Korte Suprema doon sa first three na finile ng private citizens and private groups? So marami pong kwestyon sa hakbang na yan ng Supreme Court,” she said.

(So why is the Supreme Court still interested in the first three complaints filed by private citizens and private groups? There are many questions about that action of the Supreme Court.)

Under the Constitution, there are three ways to initiate an impeachment case:

• through a complaint filed by a citizen and endorsed by any member of the House;
• through a complaint filed directly by a member of the House;
• or through a verified complaint of impeachment filed by at least one-third of all House members.

De Lima stressed that the current proceedings stemmed from this third mode—the direct action of at least one-third of the House.

“It’s just very disconcerting. Alam naman natin na yung articles of impeachment na ‘yan, base ‘yan doon sa verified na pinirmahan at inendorso ng 215 or more members of the House of Representatives,” she said.

(It’s just very disconcerting. We all know that those articles of impeachment are based on the verified complaint signed and endorsed by 215 or more members of the House of Representatives.)

“So we’re talking here about that mode of impeachment, pangatlong mode na direcho ang House of Representatives. Hindi yung first [three] complaints at first two modes,” she added.

(So we’re talking here about that mode of impeachment—the third mode, which goes directly through the House of Representatives. Not the first three complaints or the first two modes.)

There are three earlier impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte that were all filed by private individuals and groups in December 2024. Each of these was endorsed by members of the House of Representatives but did not move forward to the Senate.

READ: First impeachment complaint vs VP Sara filed at House

READ: VP Sara Duterte faces 2nd impeachment rap

READ: VP Sara Duterte slapped with 3rd impeachment complaint

Despite the three citizen-initiated complaints, it was a fourth impeachment complaint—filed and signed by at least 215 members of the House of Representatives—that ultimately led to Duterte’s impeachment.

This “third mode” complaint was swiftly approved, and the articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate. The Senate formally convened as an impeachment court on June 10, 2025, but hours later voted to remand the case to the House of Representatives for further action.

RELATED STORIES:

VP trial can proceed even with SC resolution – lawmaker

Chua okay with SC directive on impeachment: It shouldn’t hinder trial