Veteran human rights lawyers and lawmakers Akbayan Party-list Representative Chel Diokno and Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Representative Leila de Lima have voiced disappointment over the Supreme Court’s ruling that declared the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte as “unconstitutional.”
In a statement, Rep. Diokno described the decision as a defeat for accountability in government, asserting that the House of Representatives had followed proper procedures under the Constitution.
“In this decision, the people, the fight for accountability, lost. Impeachment is about accountability. The process followed the constitution: the complaint was verified, endorsed by more than one-third of the House, and Vice President Sara Duterte only faced one case,” Diokno stated.
“There was no violation of due process — only a demand to present the truth to the Filipino people.”
Although dismayed by the Court’s ruling, Diokno reaffirmed his commitment to the broader fight for justice and accountability.
“Together with the people, we would not get tired of holding officials accountable. We will continue to work with civil society and reform-minded leaders to defend our democracy and ensure that truth and justice prevail,” he said.
Rep. Leila de Lima, who previously served as Secretary of Justice and as a senator, questioned the Supreme Court’s decision, citing procedural issues and a lack of opportunity for the House to present its side.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional is not only unprecedented; it is procedurally questionable,” said de Lima.
She further criticized the Court’s approach:
“This was a decision made without asking the other side to explain. The House of Representatives, the principal respondent in the case, was not given the opportunity to file a formal Comment as required by Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. No such order was issued by the Court.”
Despite her concerns, de Lima emphasized that respect for the High Court remains, but stressed the need for clarity and transparency in such a consequential decision.
“I respect the Supreme Court. But in a case of this magnitude — transcendental constitutional importance — we must demand clarity, not shortcuts. The public deserves an explanation. The Court must account for this serious departure from established rules of procedure,” she concluded.
The Supreme Court’s decision has sparked intense debate among lawmakers, legal experts, and civil society groups, many of whom are now calling for a reexamination of the balance of power between co-equal branches of government.