CARTOON BY: AARON PAUL C. CARIL
EDITORIAL
Respect the Rule of Law
In a democracy, the rule of law is not a slogan—it is the foundation upon which all institutions stand. The recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court declaring the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional is a moment that demands reflection, not rebellion. The Court ruled that the complaint violated the one-year bar on impeachment proceedings and failed to meet due process standards, thereby halting the Senate’s jurisdiction over the matter. Whether one agrees with the outcome or not, the legitimacy of the process must be upheld. The rule of law is not a tool to be wielded only when convenient—it is a discipline that binds us all.
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not absolve Vice President Duterte of the charges against her. It merely clarified that any impeachment complaint must adhere to constitutional timelines and procedural fairness. The Court emphasized that impeachment is not a purely political exercise but a legal and constitutional process with political characteristics. This distinction is crucial. It reminds us that accountability must be pursued within the bounds of law, not outside it. To ignore this is to risk turning our institutions into arenas of partisan warfare, where legality is sacrificed for expediency.
Yet, some voices in Congress have chosen to openly criticize the Court’s decision. Representative Leila de Lima, herself a lawyer and former Justice Secretary, called the ruling “procedurally questionable” and “unprecedented,” arguing that the House was denied the opportunity to formally respond to the petition. She claimed the decision was “ex parte,” issued without hearing all sides, and warned that such shortcuts erode public trust in the judiciary. Senator Risa Hontiveros echoed this sentiment, expressing dismay and raising “disturbing questions” about the long-term consequences of the ruling. She questioned how the one-year bar was applied when only one complaint reached the Senate, citing the Court’s own precedent in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives.
These criticisms, while impassioned, must be tempered by a deeper understanding of constitutional order. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional questions. Its decisions are not suggestions—they are binding interpretations of the law. To challenge the Court’s authority in this manner risks undermining the very system that protects our rights and freedoms. Disagreement is part of democracy, but it must be expressed within the framework of respect for institutional roles. Otherwise, we risk replacing rule of law with rule of opinion.
It is also worth noting that the Court’s decision does not foreclose future accountability. A new impeachment complaint may be filed after February 6, 2026, once the one-year bar has lapsed. This provides a lawful path forward for those who believe the Vice President must answer for the allegations against her. The Court’s ruling, far from shielding wrongdoing, simply insists that justice be pursued through proper channels. That is not evasion—it is constitutional fidelity.
In moments like these, we must remember that the rule of law is not just a legal principle—it is a moral one. It demands patience, discipline, and respect for process. To those who feel disappointed by the Court’s decision, let that disappointment fuel a renewed commitment to legal reform, civic education, and institutional integrity. But let it never justify contempt for the very system that holds our democracy together.