By Integrated Bar of the Philippines
It is not the assertion of power by those who govern that gives meaning to democracy, but the rule of law the living expression of its covenant with the governed.
The Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives is not merely about judicial review or impeachment. It is about the enduring architecture of a constitutional order where power is limited, roles are defined and accountability flows through process. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines reaffirms its commitment to that order, in defense of the legal framework that holds them all to account.
As the final arbiter of constitutional questions, the SC bears the solemn duty to interpret the law, determine its bounds and clarify its implications -- even when it revisits past doctrines or addresses new contexts. This authority is rooted in checks and balances: the very design that guards against the excesses of any branch.
In recognizing the Court’s authority to interpret constitutional limitations, even on matters as politically charged as impeachment, we do not diminish the exclusive role of the House of Representatives. We dignify it.
Impeachment occupies a distinct and indispensable place in our constitutional order. As an instrument of accountability, it is entrusted to the people’s elected representatives. Yet its political nature does not place it beyond the reach of judicial review under the Constitution.
To uphold the Constitution is to uphold each of its mandates equally whether judicial, legislative, or executive. We therefore recognize and respect the exclusive power of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment, just as we acknowledge the SC’s solemn duty to interpret the Constitution and resolve legal uncertainties in faithful service to the Republic.
Disagreement with the Court’s reasoning is neither unwelcome nor unexpected. Dissent is not foreign to a democracy; it is essential to its survival. But to incite public repudiation of its authority, or even just to call for its outright defiance, erodes the very foundations of the legal order. Such actions disturb the equilibrium of powers and imperil the integrity of our democratic institutions, especially when appropriate legal remedies remain available within the framework of our constitutional system. If every adverse ruling becomes an invitation to disobey, the law ceases to be a constraint on power and becomes its casualty. The Constitution does not require agreement. It demands adherence.
In defending the legal processes, we defend not just institutions. We defend the sovereignty of the people, from whom all authority flows and to whom all must answer.