ROBES AND REVENGE: DE LIMA SLAMS COURT IN DUTERTE’S IMPEACHMENT BLOODBATH

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 16, 2025

THE Philippine political arena is a brutal coliseum, and Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment saga, with Leila de Lima swinging as a House prosecutor, is its bloodiest spectacle yet. De Lima’s cry of “judicial overreach” against the Supreme Court’s document demand reeks of irony from a woman who danced with the judiciary to secure her own freedom. Is the Court a constitutional sentinel or a robed pawn in a Duterte-Marcos vendetta? Let’s carve through the rhetoric with a machete, exposing the legal, political, and hypocritical entrails of this high-stakes drama.

1. RIPPING APART DE LIMA’S “OVERREACH” CRUSADE: LEGIT GRIEVANCE OR POLITICAL REVENGE?

De Lima’s Theatrical Outrage: Principled or Crocodile Tears?

Leila de Lima, fresh from her June 2024 acquittal on drug charges she branded as Duterte-orchestrated persecution, slams the Supreme Court’s order for Congress to submit impeachment documents as “judicial overreach.” She argues it violates the House’s sole power to initiate impeachment under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, claiming the Court’s demand for sworn information on procedural steps, evidence review, and House business inclusion “implies doubt” in the House’s process. Her DZBB interview drips with indignation: “para bang nasobrahan naman yata” (it’s like they’ve gone too far).

Yet, her sanctimonious tone falters under scrutiny. De Lima, who leaned on judicial processes to escape her six-year detention, now decries scrutiny of a political process targeting her arch-nemesis. Is this a defense of constitutional purity or a calculated jab at the Dutertes?

The Court’s Constitutional Sword: Article VIII, Section 1

The Supreme Court wields Article VIII, Section 1, empowering it to review any branch’s acts for “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” This isn’t a free pass but a constitutional leash, as seen in Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), where the Court struck down an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. for violating the one-year bar rule. The Francisco precedent confirms the Court can police procedural compliance without dictating impeachment merits.

Here, the Court’s July 2025 order—prompted by Sara Duterte’s February 18, 2025, petition alleging violations like the one-year bar (Article XI, Section 3(5))—is a procedural probe, not a substantive overreach. De Lima’s “tyranny” charge crumbles; the Court is ensuring the House didn’t fumble the constitutional playbook.

Duterte-Judicial Conspiracy or Legitimate Oversight?

De Lima’s hint of Duterte-judicial-realpolitik leans on the Philippines’ history of politicized courts. Her own 2017 arrest, widely seen as Rodrigo Duterte’s vendetta, and the 2020 dismissal of her habeas data suit (De Lima v. Duterte, G.R. No. 227635, 2019) on presidential immunity grounds fuel her distrust. But accusing the Court of Duterte loyalty here is a leap. The petitions, including Duterte’s and one by a Kingdom of Jesus Christ lawyer, raise valid constitutional questions (e.g., one-year bar, due process).

The Court’s document demand is a fact-finding mission, not a verdict, aligning with cases like Lagman v. Pimentel ( G.R. No. 235935, 2018) (martial law extension). De Lima’s “overreach” narrative feels more like political payback than a legal argument, rooted in her Duterte grudge.

Exposing De Lima’s Hypocrisy: Selective Sanctimony

De Lima’s acquittal in June 2024 gives her moral capital to critique judicial abuse, but her pivot to condemning judicial oversight in Duterte’s case is dripping with irony. As a former Justice Secretary who used courts to probe Duterte’s drug war, she’s no stranger to legal-political warfare. Her role in the House prosecution panel, alongside Chel Diokno (GMA News, May 14, 2025), screams strategic score-settling. If the Court’s scrutiny is overreach, why was her judicial vindication not? Her selective outrage paints her as a player in the same game she decries.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL CAGE MATCH: HOUSE VS. COURT, SENATE’S GUTLESS RETREAT

House vs. Court: Procedural Smackdown or Judicial Power Grab?

Article XI, Section 3 grants the House “sole power of impeachment” and the Senate “sole power to try and decide” impeachments. De Lima argues the Court’s document demand trespasses on this sacred turf, echoing U.S. precedent like Nixon v. United States (1993), where impeachment was deemed a non-justiciable political question.

But the Philippines’ Article VIII, Section 1 and Francisco v. House (2003) allow judicial review of procedural lapses. The Court’s probe, triggered by Duterte’s petition citing the one-year bar and procedural flaws, is a constitutional stress test, not a coup. The House’s February 5, 2025, complaint with 240 signatures cleared the one-third threshold, but questions about evidence review and timing justify the Court’s inquiry. De Lima’s “power grab” claim is overblown; the Court’s checking process, not dictating outcomes.

Senate’s Spineless Sidestep: Strategic Stall or Constitutional Betrayal?

The Senate’s June 10, 2025, remand of the impeachment articles to the House (18-5 vote) is a cowardly dodge. De Lima rightly calls out Senate President Chiz Escudero and Duterte allies for hiding behind “judicial courtesy” to delay the trial. UP professors Paolo Tamase and Dante Gatmaytan slam the remand as unconstitutional, arguing the Senate’s role is to try, not supervise, the House (Rappler, June 11, 2025).

Senator Risa Hontiveros, among the five dissenters, insisted the Senate must “sit as judges, conduct the trial, and decide.” The Constitution doesn’t grant the Senate veto power over the House’s process; the remand is a political stall, especially with May 2025 midterms looming. Escudero’s move hands Duterte a lifeline, but it’s a constitutional abdication that tarnishes the Senate’s mandate.

3. BLOODSPORT FALLOUT: DELAY, DEFIANCE, AND A TRUST APOCALYPSE

Trial by Delay: Duterte’s Escape Hatch?

A Supreme Court freeze or dismissal of the impeachment—say, on one-year bar grounds—could let Sara Duterte dodge accountability, much like Rodrigo’s ICC evasion. Pending petitions, including Duterte’s and a Kingdom of Jesus Christ lawyer’s, could push the trial past the 20th Congress’s July 28, 2025, start. A prolonged delay risks mootness, diluting public outrage or enabling Marcos-Duterte backroom deals.

A ruling against the House could also set a precedent for judicial overreach in future impeachments, echoing Marcos-era fears of a captured Court. Francisco v. House shows the Court can nix complaints procedurally without dictating merits, but overstepping here could ignite a constitutional firestorm.

Public Trust in Freefall: De Lima vs. Duterte’s Diehards

De Lima’s June 2024 acquittal lends her a martyr’s aura, but her past—slut-shaming, drug charge smears—caps her appeal. Sara Duterte, despite the 240-signature complaint, commands fierce Davao loyalty, framing the impeachment as Marcos persecution (East Asia Forum, February 25, 2025).

This circus—Senate dithering, Court petitions—further erodes faith in institutions battered by Duterte’s drug war and De Lima’s detention. The judiciary, once a tool to silence De Lima, now faces accusations of shielding Duterte. The result? A polarized public, with trust in Congress and the Court hitting rock bottom.

4. DROPPING THE MIC: BOLD FIXES FOR A BROKEN SYSTEM

To the Supreme Court: Don’t Light a Constitutional Fuse

Issue a laser-focused ruling on procedural issues—like the one-year bar or evidence review—without touching impeachment merits. Francisco v. House proves you can police process without playing kingmaker. Overreach risks a Marcos-era crisis, handing Duterte a martyr card and De Lima a megaphone to cry tyranny.

To Congress: Stop Being Spineless

The Senate’s 18-5 remand was a constitutional travesty. Tamase and Gatmaytan are right—no legal basis exists for the Senate to babysit the House (Rappler, June 11, 2025). The Senate must try the case, not hide behind “judicial courtesy.” The House, too, should tighten its process—240 signatures don’t excuse sloppy evidence handling. Own your constitutional power, or the Court will keep stepping in.

To De Lima: Ditch the Drama Queen Act

Your “overreach” rant rallies your base, but it’s hollow. You cheered judicial processes when they freed you. Impeachment is a political knife fight, not a constitutional seminar. Push for a fair trial, but don’t paint the Court’s procedural check as a Duterte conspiracy. Your vendetta is personal—don’t masquerade it as principle.

THE FINAL STING: A FILIPINO GAME OF THRONES

This impeachment saga is a power grab dressed in legal robes—Marcos vs. Duterte, De Lima vs. her ghosts, and a judiciary dodging crossfire. The Supreme Court’s document demand isn’t tyranny; it’s a constitutional flex, but a misstep could tilt the balance. The Senate’s remand is a gutless dodge, and De Lima’s sanctimony reeks of score-settling.

As the 20th Congress looms and midterms reshape the Senate, this bloodsport will either forge accountability or shatter trust. The Philippines deserves more than a constitutional cage match—will its institutions rise or burn?

KEY CITATIONS

1987 Philippine Constitution:

Article XI, Section 3 (House and Senate impeachment powers)
Article VIII, Section 1 (judicial review).

Court cases
- Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003): Court’s authority to review impeachment procedural lapses.
- De Lima v. Duterte (G.R. No. 227635, 2019 ): (presidential immunity ruling).
- Lagman v. Pimentel( G.R. No. 235935, 2018): Court’s review of executive/legislative actions.

Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Petition: Reuters, February 19, 2025 (one-year bar and procedural challenges).

House Impeachment Complaint: NPR, February 5, 2025 (240 signatures, charges).

Senate Remand Decision:

Rappler, June 10, 2025 (18-5 vote)
Rappler, June 11, 2025 (unconstitutionality arguments).

De Lima’s Role and Criticism:

GMA News, May 14, 2025 (prosecution panel)
GMA News, June 14, 2025 (Senate critique).

De Lima’s Acquittal:

BBC, June 24, 2024 (drug charges dismissed).

Political Context:
- East Asia Forum, February 25, 2025 (Marcos-Duterte feud).
Impeachment Overview:
- Wikipedia, Impeachment of Sara Duterte (carryover debate, accessed July 13, 2025).

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.