Judicial overreach?

Recently, the Supreme Court asked the House of Representatives to explain the details of the impeachment process against Vice President Sara Duterte.

- 

The Court wants to know whether the lawmakers read and understood what they signed, and if the House followed the rules. On the surface, it appears to be a simple request for clarification. But for many, including retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and ML party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, it signals something far more troubling: judicial overreach.

It now appears that the Supreme Court is aligning itself with the Senate regarding the House's role in the impeachment. By asking whether lawmakers read what they signed, the High Tribunal is not-so-subtly implying that our elected representatives are what, illiterate? Possessed? Zombies? Victims of mass hypnosis? Was there a mysterious, miraculous force that guided their hands to sign something that they didn't understand? By questioning whether each representative read and understood the complaint before signing, the Court not only insults the intelligence of lawmakers but casts doubt on the very integrity of Congress and, by extension, the foundations of legal and democratic practice. Justice Carpio was spot on: what's the point? The lawmakers signed it. They verified it. They affirmed that the allegations were true to their knowledge or based on authentic documents. If that's not good enough, what's next? A mental exam? A legal report? A polygraph test? That's not a presumption of regularity, that's assumption of idiocy.