Lawyers Back Supreme Court on Impeachment Review
IBP Affirms Judiciary’s Role in Upholding Constitutional Order
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has voiced strong support for the Supreme Court’s authority to scrutinize the constitutionality of impeachment proceedings. This stance underscores a critical moment for the rule of law in the Philippines.
Defending Democratic Architecture
In a statement released Friday, the IBP declared that the Court’s decision in the case of Duterte v. House of Representatives
transcends mere impeachment politics. It represents a defense of Philippine democracy’s fundamental structure, where powers are defined and accountability is maintained through established processes.
The organization emphasized that this is not a judicial overreach. This is fidelity to the Constitution — a legal order that binds those who govern and empowers the governed. We defend that order,
the IBP asserted.
Supreme Court as Final Arbiter
As the nation’s largest association of lawyers, the IBP affirmed the Supreme Court’s preeminent role in interpreting constitutional questions. This includes delineating the boundaries of impeachment, even in cases with significant political implications.
The IBP clarified that recognizing the Court’s power to assess constitutional limits on impeachment does not diminish the House of Representatives’ exclusive impeachment authority. Instead, it dignifies it,
the group stated.
Constitutional Scrutiny of Impeachment
While acknowledging impeachment as a vital power granted to elected officials, the IBP maintained that it cannot operate outside the purview of constitutional review. Its political nature does not place it beyond the reach of judicial review,
the IBP stressed.
Warning Against Defiance
The IBP issued a stern warning against any attempts to encourage public defiance of the Supreme Court’s rulings, labeling such actions as a dangerous erosion of legal order.
Disagreement with the Court’s reasoning is part of democracy. But to incite repudiation of its authority, or to call for outright defiance, undermines the very foundations of our legal institutions,
the statement read. It further cautioned, Every adverse ruling cannot become an invitation to disobey. The law must not become the first casualty of dissent.
The organization also criticized leaders and bodies that bypass legal avenues in favor of public sentiment, especially when legitimate legal remedies are accessible within the constitutional framework.
Upholding the People’s Will
The IBP concluded by highlighting that defending due process is fundamentally about safeguarding the sovereign will of the people. This principle ensures that all leaders remain ultimately accountable to the populace, who are the true source of governing power.
This principle aligns with global trends where judicial review plays a crucial role in maintaining checks and balances. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in *Marbury v. Madison* (1803) established judicial review, a cornerstone of American constitutional law, allowing courts to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. This precedent influences legal systems worldwide, reinforcing the importance of an independent judiciary. (Supreme Court of the United States)
