Congress Cannot Hide Behind Silence: Why the House Must Answer the Supreme Court’s Questions on the VP Impeachment

 By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The Philippine House of Representatives has refused to answer several key questions posed by the Supreme Court concerning the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. These questions are neither trivial nor partisan; they strike at the very heart of constitutional due process and legislative transparency in the exercise of one of the most consequential powers granted to Congress—impeachment.

Among the unanswered questions are:

Who prepared the draft Articles of Impeachment, and when was it completed?

Was the draft circulated to all members of the House?

Were the charges accompanied by supporting evidence?

Did each member have a genuine opportunity to review the charges before consenting?

By refusing to respond, the House is not simply ignoring a co-equal branch—it is undermining the Constitution itself.

Judicial Review is Not Optional

The 1987 Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review, including the authority to determine whether any branch of government—including Congress—has committed grave abuse of discretion (Article VIII, Section 1). In the landmark case of Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003), the Court declared that even the impeachment process, though a political undertaking, is not immune from judicial scrutiny.

The High Court emphasized that the House’s discretion to initiate impeachment must still be exercised within constitutional bounds. When the Court asks whether members of Congress were properly informed or whether evidence was actually shared, it is seeking to fulfill its constitutional duty—not encroach on legislative turf.

Secrecy Breeds Abuse

Transparency is not a courtesy; it is a constitutional obligation. If the Articles of Impeachment were rushed, not shared with all members, or passed without the evidence being available, then what occurred was not due process—it was political theater disguised as constitutional procedure.

In Arnault v. Nazareno (87 Phil. 29), the Supreme Court reminded us that even internal congressional rules cannot violate the Constitution. The refusal to answer procedural questions betrays this principle and suggests a deliberate concealment of potential irregularities.

Lessons from the U.S. Constitution

In the United States, where the House of Representatives also holds the “sole Power of Impeachment,” transparency is an integral part of the process. Though U.S. courts generally refrain from interfering in impeachment (Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224), the principle that no branch is above constitutional norms was firmly established in United States v. Nixon (418 U.S. 683).

When legal and constitutional questions arise—even in politically sensitive processes—the judiciary is not only allowed but required to intervene. The same applies in the Philippines under our expanded doctrine of judicial review.

The Danger of Legislative Evasion

The House of Representatives' refusal to answer these questions sends a dangerous message: that it can wield its powers without accountability, transparency, or explanation. That is a direct affront to the rule of law.

If Congress is allowed to insulate itself from inquiry under the guise of “sole power,” it sets a precedent where impeachment becomes a political weapon unrestrained by due process or truth. It risks reducing one of our constitutional checks into a tool of vendetta or factionalism.

A Constitutional Imperative

The refusal to answer the Supreme Court’s questions must be seen for what it is—a potential grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court must compel answers. If the Court finds that due process was ignored, it has the duty to declare the transmittal of impeachment void.

In a constitutional democracy, no branch is above the law, and no power is beyond review. If our institutions are to remain credible, we must demand that even Congress—especially Congress—answers to the people and the Constitution.#

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University.  He is an AB-Philosophy Major at the University  of Santo Tomas ( UST). He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances.