Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima favors the proposed discussion between the House of Representatives and the Senate if only to address what she has described as the "judicial overreach" in the Supreme Court’s (SC) final decision on Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment during the 19th Congress.

"Bukas po tayo sa mungkahing pag-usapan ng Senado at Kamara ang maaaring maging tugon ng Kongreso sa naging desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa kasong impeachment laban kay VP Sara," De Lima said in a statement on Saturday, Jan. 31.

(We are open to the proposal that the Senate and House discuss Congress’ possible response to the SC’s decision in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara.)

"Naniniwala po tayo na may nangyari ngang judicial overreach dito, kung saan pinahina o pinanghimasukan ng korte ang kapangyarihan ng kapantay na sangay nito sa gobyerno," said the House deputy minority leader.

(We firmly believe that judicial overreach has indeed taken place here, where the court weakened or encroached upon the powers of its co-equal branch in government.)

"And as I have said, this judicial legislation sets a very dangerous precedent that weakens separation of powers by transforming impeachment from a political safeguard into a judicially managed process, contrary to the design and spirit of the Constitution.

"Addressing this crucial issue is of transcendental importance," reckoned De Lima.

On Friday or a day after the SC denied with finality the House's motion for reconsideration (MR) on it decision last year to declare the impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte as unconstitutional, Senate President Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said he wanted to have discussions with the House on Charter Change (Cha-Cha).

This, as Sotto acknowledged the need to revisit Congress' rules on impeachment after the SC En Banc's controversial ruling last Thursday.

"Sa usapin ng pagpapalit o pag-amyenda ng Saligang Batas, kung sasang-ayon ako o hindi ay depende sa layunin nito (On the matter of revising or amending the Constitution, whether I agree or not depends on the purpose)," De Lima said.

"Open po ako, halimbawa, sa paglilinaw sa mga probisyon sa impeachment, gawing self-executing ang probisyon sa pagbawal ng political dynasties at pag-amyenda sa ilang mga economic provisions," she noted.

(I am open, for example, to clarifying provisions on impeachment, making the ban on political dynasties self-executing, and amending certain economic provisions.)

She clarified, however, that tweaks to public officials' term limits are a big no-no for her.

"Pero kapag ang agenda ay para bigyang daan ang term extension ng mga nakaupo, pag-alis ng term limit, pagtanggal ng ban sa political dynasty, at paglabnaw ng mga probisyon sa human rights and social justice, kokontra po tayo dyan," she said.

(But if the agenda is to allow term extensions for incumbents, remove term limits, lift the ban on political dynasties, or dilute provisions on human rights and social justice, I will oppose it.)

De Lima, a former Department of Justice (DOJ) secretary, would have been part of the House prosecution team in Vice President Duterte's Senate impeachment trial had it pushed through in the current 20th Congress.