An alarm was raised by the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) over what it described as a “serious disruption” of constitutional accountability following the Supreme Court’s recent decision declaring the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional.

The country’s largest private and non-compulsory organization of lawyers on Tuesday echoed the growing criticism from retired justices, leading practitioners, and legal academics against the Court’s ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives. The PBA noted that the decision marked a significant departure from long-established constitutional doctrines and could undermine the public’s ability to hold high officials accountable.

“Beyond the politics, it is indubitable that the sudden reversal of the time-tested rulings in Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. House of Representatives has triggered a firestorm of protest and dissent,” the PBA said, citing past Supreme Court rulings that upheld Congress’ sole prerogative over impeachment.

An en banc decision dated 25 July blocked the House of Representatives from proceeding with impeachment complaints against the Vice President.

It is now under mounting public scrutiny, and legal experts have warned that the ruling disturbs the separation of powers and upsets the balance intended by the 1987 Constitution.

The PBA stressed that impeachment is inherently political and must remain under the exclusive authority of Congress as the direct representatives of the people. “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.”

It further argued that public office is not a right, nor should it be treated as property protected by due process in the same manner as criminal or civil cases. “An overzealous deployment of Due Process mechanisms usually favors a public officer and frustrates the need of the public to get to the truth,” it said.

The PBA also pointed out that the Constitution deliberately lowered the threshold for initiating impeachment complaints—from two-thirds to one-third of House members—to empower the people, citing the excesses of the Martial Law era as justification. It emphasized, “This Constitutional intent, being the product of lessons learned from so much suffering, must be respected."

The lawyers’ group warned that the retroactive application of new constitutional interpretations could erode public confidence in the judiciary. “The Rule of Law requires stability, fairness, and objectivity. Enacting a significant change in the commonly held understanding of what the Constitution means… challenges the public’s belief in equality before the law,” the statement said.

Likewise, the PBA defended the right of citizens and legal professionals to question the Supreme Court’s decision through fair and respectful critique. “It is not contempt when a citizen respectfully expresses dissent,” it said, invoking the Court’s own jurisprudence on protected speech.

It also called on fellow lawyers to help the public understand the ramifications of the decision. “We serve the Rule of Law not by demanding worship, but through thoughtful reverence,” the association said, invoking the tradition of legal patriotism dating back to Apolinario Mabini.