The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) has issued a powerful and urgent appeal for the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its July 25 decision on the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte, warning that the ruling threatens to “upend the delicate balance of powers enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.”
In a four-page statement signed by PhilConsa chairman, former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the group said the ruling must be re-examined for potential violations of core constitutional principles, including the separation of powers and the exclusive authority of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings.
“Decisions of the Supreme Court that rearrange the articles of the principle of separation of power, redefine the limits of power of government or change the calculus of the balance of power between and among the three branches of our government demand their strictest scrutiny, for the slightest of error can bring about a tyrannicide that will incinerate our Constitution,” the statement read.
PhilConsa, the country’s oldest and most respected nonpartisan organization dedicated to the defense and promotion of the Constitution, noted that the SC ruled without the benefit of facts established by a trial court or reviewed by the Court of Appeals, relying instead on “dubious” and unverified reports.
“Hearsay evidence is forbidden in the search for truth for it denies due process to the prejudiced party. We therefore urge the Supreme Court to review the salient facts it relied upon in its Decision to make sure the facts speak the truth, for only a decision based on indubitable facts can stand time and its vicissitudes,” it stressed.
PhilConsa also raised alarm over the SC’s imposition of seven new rules for the House in handling impeachment cases, saying it violates the constitutional provision granting the legislative chamber exclusive authority to initiate impeachment.
“With due respect, we express grave concern on the imposition of these new seven rules, written by the Supreme Court itself for the House to comply with,” it said.
“We submit that it violates Article XI (3) of the Constitution that provides: ‘The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,’” it added.
PhilConsa said House members, as elected officials, are accountable to the people — not to the SC — and warned that allowing the judiciary to evaluate “sufficiency of evidence” and “reasonableness of time” infringes on legislative independence.
“The Rules made by the Court, which gifted itself the power to determine the sufficiency of evidence and the reasonableness of time given to all members of the House to reach an independent decision, cannot but raise eyebrows,” it said.
“It tilted the balance of power in its favor. It runs counter to the advice that in interpreting the Constitution, the role of justices is to serve strictly as umpires. They should not act as pitchers or batters in favor of any party,” PhilConsa added.
The association also opposed the requirement that due process be given to a respondent during the House’s political initiation of an impeachment case, arguing that the proper venue for such legal guarantees is the trial in the Senate.
“The right of respondent to due process should be invoked in the Senate Impeachment Court when respondent goes to trial,” PhilConsa asserted.
“The trial stage is the legal component of the impeachment process. The familiar learning is that the right to be heard is satisfied when respondent is heard before any judgment is handed down. It need not necessarily be accorded before or at the start of the judicial proceedings,” it argued.
The new SC rules effectively undermine the constitutional authority of the House and must be revisited, PhilConsa pointed out.
“In fine, the new rules written by the Court for the House to follow will render nugatory the exclusive power of the House to initiate all impeachment cases. We beg the Court to revisit the constitutionality of the new rules it wrote for the House,” the group said.
PhilConsa also warned against judicial overreach and urged respect for constitutional boundaries.
“Our Constitution is based on democracy and not on the monocracy of any branch of government. It will endure only if we are able to preserve the pristine principles of separation of power, checks and balances, accountability of officials, a public office is a public trust and the sovereignty of the people from whom all powers of government emanate,” it said.
“There ought to be no reckless tinkering of the balance of power, for any erroneous micro movement will have macro consequences on our fragile democracy. We call on the Supreme Court to avoid the political thicket, where there are too many unknowns and unknowables,” it noted.
