May the SC overrule the Impeachment Court?

The statement of the lead defense counsel, Atty. Hiela Sison, that henceforth, the participation of the respondent in the impeachment proceedings shall be with "ex-abundanti cautelam" or with much, much caution is a presumptive manifestation that the defense may boycott the impeachment. And that the camp of VP Sara is going to the Supreme Court for judicial remedy.

Also, the "boycott" by the six minority senators, consisting of Senators Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano, Imee Marcos, Bong Go, Camille Villar, and Robinhood Padilla was a telltale sign that these members of the impeachment court are most probably going to the highest court of the land in order to seek the nullification of the impeachment court's ruling which lowers the threshold number of conviction from 16 to 14.

The question is whether or not the Supreme Court is going to intervene considering that the Constitution is very clear that the Senate is the sole judge of all impeachment cases. The fundamental principle of separation of powers would constitute as a legal impediment to any judicial interference in a political issue. Let us consult the annals of our jurisprudence so as to find a viable balance between judicial review and separation of powers.

Any freshman Law student can tell you that the doctrine of separation of powers implies that each branch of government is supreme within its own sphere. However, the judiciary retains the power of judicial review --the authority to determine whether acts of government conform to the Constitution (Art. VIII, Sec. 1).There is thus a need to balance between these two basic principles.

Our professor, the legendary Matoy Seno, taught us that the related doctrine, the political question doctrine, traditionally limits judicial review in areas committed by the Constitution to the discretion of the political branches. However, the 1987 Constitution significantly expanded judicial power, mandating courts to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion. Thus judicial review may be justified on this basis.

Whenever there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the government, then the courts may intervene under the principle of judicial review. This clause has been pivotal in the Supreme Court’s intervention in impeachment controversies.

In the 2003 landmark decision in the case of Francisco v. House of Representatives, involving the attempt to impeach Chief Justice Hilario G Davide, Jr., the court asserted its authority to review acts of Congress in impeachment proceedings when there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion. It reasoned that the House’s exclusive power to initiate impeachment does not place it beyond the reach of constitutional limits.

In the 2011 case of Merceditas Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Francisco ruling but clarified that judicial review in impeachment matters is not absolute --it may only intervene to correct grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors in judgment. The ruling emphasized judicial restraint but did not fully dispel concerns about the judiciary’s power to halt political proceedings.

In the 2018 case of Maria Lourdes Sereno v. Committee on Justice, House of Representatives, the former lady chief justice questioned the attempt to impeach her by the House but she was eventually removed via a petition for quo warranto and not by impeachment.

Based on all the foregoing, this column submits that the Supreme Court will most likely proceed with much, much caution on any attempt to seek nullification of the impeachment court's ruling on the threshold number for conviction.