Public discourse, while commendable and worthy of encouragement (as opposed to a politically apathetic society), was not the case with Sara Duterte’s impeachment. It was more divisive than informative.
After the fourth impeachment complaint was voted upon and endorsed by the House of Representatives to the Senate, many differing opinions were floated about the impeachment complaint — from its legality to questions on whether it would survive the end of the 19th Congress into the 20th Congress after the election, including speculations on the implications of the unaddressed first three impeachment complaints filed in the House.
While I, like most lawyers, had my own thoughts and opinions on the issues, I believed the situation called for restraint amid all of the noise and legalese being thrown about online and over conventional media. What was clear even then, whether the impeachment of Sara Duterte should push through, was a question only the Supreme Court of the Philippines could answer definitively.
In all fairness, if it wanted to, the Supreme Court could have invoked departmental courtesy or even a political question to avoid responsibility. But given the national significance and divisiveness of the issue, the Supreme Court did not shirk from its constitutional mandate to step in and decide finally on matters raised in the petitions filed before it. If not to put a final closure on the case, at least to provide all stakeholders proper guidance on how best to move forward.
Many legal personalities in favor of the impeachment were so eager and quick to cast doubt on the motives of the Supreme Court and accuse it of bias because of how it ruled on the consolidated petitions in the matter of the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. A ruling of the Court that was, by the way, decided en banc and unanimously.
One of the first things they teach us in law school is the strict hierarchy of the courts. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, especially in en banc rulings (as opposed to rulings by a division), that’s it. Getting a reversal on a unanimous en banc decision is like a “Hail Mary” to the high heavens. And, it is a “mortal sin” to publicly attack the integrity and credibility of all courts, most especially the Supreme Court.
That said, the self-righteous indignation of many who spoke too rashly didn’t last very long. That bubble burst with the reminder of the vast power that the Supreme Court wields against all those who seek or attempt to erode the integrity and credibility of the institution. There is a thin line between fair criticism and contempt when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Lest we forget, it is called the Supreme Court for a reason. It is the highest court of the land and the final arbiter of all things legal and constitutional. All its decisions form part of the law of the land. If one does not agree with a ruling or feel aggrieved by it, then by all means, file an appeal or motion for reconsideration.
But respectfully, no amount of indignation or sincere belief of an error despite years in successful law practice, maybe a professorial tenure at a prestigious law school, or a stint as justice secretary, gives any member of the bar the license to cast unsubstantiated aspersions on the impartiality, credibility and integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution.