Supreme Court Ruling on Sara Duterte Impeachment Challenges Norms
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine Bar Association (PBA) has joined legal experts and scholars in criticizing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the impeachment case involving Vice President Sara Duterte. The PBA warned that this decision fundamentally altered constitutional norms and weakened the accountability of public officials.
According to the PBA, this Supreme Court ruling changed the widely accepted interpretation of the Constitution on a critical public matter. They stressed that applying this change retroactively undermines the public’s trust in equality before the law and damages confidence in democratic institutions.
Constitutional Principles at Stake
The PBA pointed out that the court’s abrupt reversal of precedents from Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. House of Representatives sparked widespread protest and dissent among legal circles and the public alike.
To clarify the ruling’s implications, the PBA highlighted key constitutional principles. It emphasized that Congress must operate independently, free from judicial interference, when fulfilling its duties.
“Where the Constitution entrusted a power ‘solely’ to one Branch, it intended it to remain there. No Branch is allowed to alter–directly or indirectly–what the text of the Constitution itself establishes,” the association said.
Concerns Over Due Process and Accountability
The PBA criticized what it described as the “overzealous” application of due process, arguing that it unfairly favors public officials and hampers the public’s right to uncover the truth.
They reminded the public that no official is entitled to an unchallengeable term in office. Holding public office is neither a right nor a property protected by due process. The PBA also noted, “Besides, impeachment does not result in death, imprisonment, or taking of property.”
The organization further explained that the impeachment process was intentionally designed to enhance accountability. The framers lowered the required vote threshold from two-thirds to one-third to avoid repeating the impunity experienced during the martial law era.
“This constitutional intent, being the product of lessons learned from so much suffering, must be respected,” the group stressed.
Respect for Free Speech and Judicial Criticism
The PBA also underscored the public’s right to free speech, including the ability to respectfully criticize the judiciary.
“We are guided by the Honorable Supreme Court’s ruling command that a ‘lawyer’s duty to respect the courts and its officers does not require blind reverence,’” the association said. They emphasized that thoughtful dissent should not be punished as contempt.
“We serve the Rule of Law not by demanding worship, but through thoughtful reverence. We honor the Constitution by keeping true to its text and intent,” the PBA concluded.
For more news and updates on Supreme Court ruling, visit Filipinokami.com.
