(UPDATE) PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was not yet considering proposals to amend the Constitution, as he was focused on implementing measures aimed at boosting the country’s economic growth, Malacañang said Saturday.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro issued the statement after Senate President Vicente Sotto III said he would support moves to amend the charter following the Supreme Court’s upholding of its 2025 decision declaring the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
In a statement, Castro said the issue of charter change was not discussed during the president’s meeting with his economic team on Friday.
“The president is focused on lifting the country’s economy,” Castro said.
However, she said the proposals might be considered if presented to the president.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld its decision declaring that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings against the vice president.
In an en banc decision promulgated on Jan. 28, all those who participated in the earlier ruling unanimously denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.
Sotto said the high court’s decision infringed on Congress’ exclusive powers under Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the Constitution, as it undermined the House of Representatives’ authority to initiate an impeachment case.
“If this is what the Supreme Court is doing, it would be better to change the Constitution,” Sotto said, adding that he plans to meet with House leaders next week to discuss possible congressional action.
Voting 19-4-1 last August, the Senate ruled to archive the articles of impeachment against the vice president, following a Supreme Court ruling that declared the complaint unconstitutional.
On Friday, Malacañang said Marcos respects the Supreme Court ruling upholding its ruling on Duterte’s impeachment, but stressed that this did not clear her of any wrongdoing.
“As we can read in the Supreme Court decision, its subject matter is not about absolving an issue. So, as the president said, if there’s accountability, those persons should be made accountable,” Castro said.
The Palace official added that Marcos would not interfere if a new impeachment complaint is filed against Duterte.
The president himself is facing impeachment complaints before the House.
“Whatever happens regarding impeachment, that is within the jurisdiction of Congress, and if anyone should file such a case, our president will not meddle,” Castro said.
‘Suspicious’
Senior Deputy Minority Leader and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice criticized Sotto’s statement, calling the move “suspicious.”
“There are many provisions in the 1987 Constitution that would be discussed at the right time, but not this (impeachment). Cha-cha is untimely and highly suspicious, especially with the 2028 elections just two years away,” Erice said in a statement on Saturday.
He also said that a constitutional convention would require the passage of an enabling law, the election of delegates, and eventual ratification by the people — processes for which there is clearly no time.
Meanwhile, constitutional amendments proposed directly by Congress raise serious questions of moral authority, given controversies involving budget insertions and allegations of corruption against some lawmakers.
“Tito Sotto’s rant against the Supreme Court is much ado about nothing,” Erice said.
He also urged all parties to respect the ruling of the court and stressed that the ruling does not bar or preclude any future impeachment filing as long as the House of Representatives complies with the constitutional process.
“The process is actually very simple. The Office of the Secretary General has 10 calendar days to transmit an impeachment complaint to the speaker, and the speaker has three days to refer it to the Committee on Justice. Due process must be followed. What is difficult about that?” Erice said.
He pointed out that the controversy arose not because of the Supreme Court, but due to the actions of the House, pointing out that the Office of the Secretary General “unnecessarily” delayed the transmission of impeachment complaints, and that three impeachment complaints were effectively sidelined.
He said that only the fourth complaint was referred on the last day of the session, while the earlier complaints were archived.
The Liberal Party stalwart said that impeachment is a constitutional accountability mechanism, stressing that while the House has the sole power to initiate impeachment, that power is not absolute and must be exercised within limits.
“The Supreme Court has already clearly spelled out the procedural requirements. We must all abide by them,” Erice said.
Erice said that the House can now proceed with the hearings on Marcos’ impeachment complaint at the Committee on Justice, while any future complaints against Duterte can still be processed properly.
“If someone is impeached, the Senate should just wait for the trial. Right now, what is important is we need to respect the decision of the Supreme Court, as they are the only ones who can explain the Constitution.”
But Erice’s LP colleague, Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, said that she is open for any discussions by the Senate and the House regarding the Supreme Court’s decision against Duterte’s impeachment, reiterating that what the court did was a judicial overreach.
She also said that she is open to calls to amend the 1987 Constitution as long as it would resolve the issues regarding impeachment, making the provisions against political dynasties as self-executing, and amendments on certain political provisions.
“If the agenda is to give way for term extensions to those who are in power, removal of term limits, removal of the ban on political dynasties, and the weakening of human rights and social justice provisions, then we will be against it,” de Lima said.
Sen. Robinhood Padilla, meanwhile, flagged unresolved constitutional ambiguities following renewed calls by Sotto to amend the 1987 Constitution, warning that any move by Congress could again be struck down by the courts.
Padilla, the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revisions for three years, said attempts to implement charter change have repeatedly stalled due to the vague amendment procedures in the Constitution.
“This issue has remained both clear and vague at the same time,” Padilla said, noting that Article XVII does not explicitly define key steps needed to make constitutional amendments viable.
He pointed in particular to the long-standing dispute over whether the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote jointly or separately when acting as a constituent assembly, an issue that has repeatedly fueled legal challenges.
“Because of this confusion, any move by the two houses will again be questioned on constitutional grounds. This has to be resolved by the Supreme Court,” Padilla said.
Under Article XVII of the Constitution, amendments or revisions may be proposed through three methods: Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly with a three-fourths vote of all its members; a Constitutional Convention called by a two-thirds vote of Congress or by majority vote submitted to the electorate; or a People’s Initiative backed by at least 12 percent of registered voters, with representation from each legislative district.
