Advocate for the Legal Procedures on Our Site
In a statement, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has expressed its support for the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Duterte v. House of Representatives. The ruling, which voided the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte due to procedural grounds, has been met with both approval and criticism.
The IBP emphasises the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of constitutional questions. They acknowledge the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the law, even in politically charged matters like impeachment.
The IBP asserts that the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment, but the Supreme Court has the solemn duty to interpret the Constitution and resolve legal uncertainties, including those related to impeachment processes. They consider defying the Supreme Court ruling as an erosion of the legal order and a threat to democratic institutions.
Critics argue that the Court's ruling supplants congressional authority in impeachment, contradicts the Constitution's provisions about the exclusive power of the House in initiating impeachments, and improperly expands judicial review into a political question. However, the IBP maintains that such judicial review is a faithful service to the constitutional framework and democratic accountability.
The IBP's stance reflects a defense of the constitutional system where judicial review by the Supreme Court ensures that impeachment proceedings conform to constitutional requirements, preserving the balance and integrity of democratic governance.
The IBP reaffirms its commitment to the rule of law and the constitutional order. They underscore that power in democracy is not asserted by those who govern, but by the rule of law. They believe that defending legal processes defends the sovereignty of the people.
Disagreement with the Court's reasoning is not unwelcome or unexpected in a democracy. However, calls for public repudiation or outright defiance of the Court's authority erode the legal order. The IBP urges respect for the separation of powers and constitutional accountability across all branches of government.
The SC's ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives is about the enduring architecture of a constitutional order. It is about power being limited, roles being defined, and accountability flowing through process. The Constitution demands adherence, not agreement. The Constitution mandates equal upholding of all branches, including judicial, legislative, and executive. Appropriate legal remedies remain available within the framework of the constitutional system.
In conclusion, the IBP's stance aligns with the belief that the SC's authority to interpret constitutional limitations, including in politically charged matters like impeachment, dignifies the House of Representatives. It underscores the importance of preserving the balance and integrity of democratic governance through adherence to the Constitution.
- Despite controversial opinions, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) asserts that the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution, even in politically charged cases like impeachment, upholds the balance and integrity of democratic governance in the Philippines, which is a key element of the rule of law.
- The IBP insists that the SC's ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives is a defense of the constitutional system, safeguarding the exclusive power of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachments while ensuring impeachment proceedings adhere to constitutional requirements in the Philippines, thereby preserving the separation of powers and the democratic accountability.
