The Philippine Bar Association, the largest, private, non-compulsory organization of lawyers in the Philippines, expresses serious concerns regarding the developments following the release of Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al.1 We echo the observation of retired chief justices, associate justices, eminent practitioners and academics that the Decision alters fundamental principles of constitutional law and accountability of public officers.
Beyond the politics, it is indubitable that the sudden reversal of the time-tested rulings in Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives1 and Gutierrez v. House of Representatives1, has triggered a firestorm of protest and dissent.
Impeachment, by its very nature, will always trigger impassioned views from all sides. To our brethren, let us be reminded of our duty as lawyers to guide a public in search of answers. And in doing so, we emphasize the following key principles:
- On the nature of Impeachment, Congress, as the People’s agents, must remain free from undue interference in carrying out their 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.
- No public officer is entitled to unaccountable tenure to public office. The Constitution makes all public officers accountable to the People at all times. In this light, public office is neither a right nor is it property within the contemplation of the Due Process Clause. Besides, impeachment does not result in death, imprisonment, or taking of property. An overzealous deployment of Due Process mechanisms unduly favors a public officer and frustrates the need of the public to get to the truth.
- The current impeachment mechanisms in the 1987 Constitution were designed to make it easier for the public to hold near- invulnerable officials to account. For example, instead of two-thirds (2/3), the Framers deliberately chose a smaller number (one-thirds, 1/3) to avoid the frustrating incidents during Martial Law. This Constitutional intent, being the product of lessons learned from so much suffering, must be respected.
- The Rule of Law requires stability, fairness, and objectivity. Enacting a significant change in the commonly held understanding of what the Constitution means on a matter of paramount public importance, and retroactively applying such change, challenges the public’s belief in equality before the law and strains confidence in our democratic institutions.
Finally, we emphasize that free discourse is crucial for the maintenance of good government. The People’s right to free speech includes the right to respectfully criticize judicial conduct through “fair and true commentary”.1 We are guided by the Honorable Supreme Court’s own command that “a lawyer’s duty to respect the courts and its officers does not require blind reverence.”2 It is not contempt when a citizen respectfully expresses dissent.
Since the time of Mabini and other national heroes, the PBA has stood for the public interest and the Rule of Law. It is precisely this tradition and history of patriotism that impels us to exhort citizens to ponder and examine the implications of the Honorable Supreme Court’s ruling with a view to the greater principles that define our democracy. 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.