Judicial tyranny

By Artchil B. Fernandez

The gods of Padre Faura once again gave face to arrogance and abuse of power. They anew demonstrated that they are above and beyond the Constitution.
Interpreting the Constitution is a duty that belongs to the Supreme Court. In over a decade, the Supreme Court has used this exclusive power to arrogate itself. The High Court is dangerously inching toward judicial tyranny via judicial overreach.

The High Tribunal is slowly building the edifice of judicial autocracy through decisions that transgress and spit on the Constitution and by introducing heretical judicial novelty or inventing legal fiction. It judicially amends the Constitution, concocts concepts not found in it, rewrites the highest law by injecting unlawful ideas plucked from thin air, and assumes powers not granted to it by the Constitution. The Philippines is on the way to judicial dictatorship, where the High Court is supreme and absolute.

A powerful legal bomb was detonated by the Supreme Court through the cancellation of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The legal foundation of the nation is badly shaken and seriously damaged by the outrageous decision of the High Court. It pushed the country into a “constitutional crisis.” This is not the first time the Supreme Court has made a highly provocative and disputable decision.

Upholding the midnight appointment of Renato Corona and ousting Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno via quo warranto are among the several decisions of the Supreme Court that the legal community viewed as patently unconstitutional, grossly erroneous, and a glaring abuse of power. The Sara Duterte impeachment decision is an addition to the list.

In a unanimous 13-0 decision, the Supreme Court voided it on the grounds that the one-year ban prescribed in the Constitution was violated and due process was not observed. It then laid down seven requirements for the impeachment process in the House.

The legal community and the nation were aghast, shocked, and outraged by the decision of the Supreme Court. It reimagines the impeachment initiation in the House and reverses a previous ruling of the High Court. In the 2003 Francisco v. House of Representatives ruling, the Supreme Court declared that “initiation occurs only when a complaint is included in the Order of Business and referred to the proper committee.”

Four impeachment complaints were filed in the House against [name missing]. The first three, filed in December 2024, the House ignored—never referring them to the proper committee. The fourth one, the House accepted via the second mode of impeachment—more than two-thirds signed—and was sent to the Senate for trial. But the High Court said the fourth impeachment complaint is void since the first three were deemed initiated, thus triggering the one-year ban. The retroactive application of the new ruling is patently wrong.

Former Supreme Court Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, who penned the 2003 Supreme Court decision, clarified that “‘initiate,’ as worded in the Constitution, starts with filing and referral to the justice committee, without which there could be no initiation.” She pointedly declared, “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the transmittal of the complaint [to the committee] that remains to be the definition of initiation.”

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) questioned the imposition of new rules on the House regarding impeachment. The group said the High Court is “over-judicializing a sui generis (unique) mechanism designed to exact accountability and to determine continuing fitness for public office at the highest levels.” The Supreme Court decision, according to the group, “effectively insulates all impeachable officials under the Constitution by rendering the filing of complaints unduly exacting and overly tedious.”

The critical question is, can the Supreme Court dictate to the House, a co-equal body, on how it conducts its internal business? The Constitution vested in the House the sole power to initiate an impeachment complaint. It is not within the purview of the Supreme Court, and its motive for interference is suspect since Supreme Court justices are themselves subject to impeachment. The prescriptions in the decision benefit them, aside from shielding Sara Duterte from being held to account for her actions.

It is highly suspect when the Supreme Court raised the issue of due process. The justices deliberately ignored the fact that being impeached is not the same as being guilty. The guilt or innocence of an impeached high official is determined by the Senate as an impeachment court. Due process is given to an impeached official in the impeachment trial. The impeached official confronts his or her accusers in the impeachment court and proves his or her innocence in the Senate acting as the impeachment court.

It is premature for the High Court to raise the question of “due process.” On the contrary, by stopping the impeachment trial of Sara Duterte, the Supreme Court denied her due process. The impeachment court is the proper venue for her to prove her innocence, which she is now deprived of. Without an impeachment trial, there is no way for Sara Duterte to dispute and disprove the charges against her—hence, denying her due process. If the Supreme Court is truly concerned with due process, it should have allowed the impeachment trial of Sara Duterte in the Senate to proceed. Unless “due process” is merely an alibi to conceal the real motive behind the decision—to protect and shield Sara Duterte.

The Supreme Court is brazenly flexing raw power. Due process, fairness, and justice are mere smokescreens to hide the real purpose of the Supreme Court, which is to make it hard and difficult to exact accountability from high officials, including themselves. In its desire to protect officials accused of high crimes from being held accountable, the Supreme Court not only overreached but claimed powers not given to it by the Constitution. This is judicial tyranny in its naked and barest form.

Who will protect the Filipino people from the gods of Padre Faura? Woe to the nation.